Embargoed judgments
A draft judgment may be sent to the parties but this does not mean that the judgment or its effect can be communicated by them to witnesses. A party’s legal representative may need to explain specifically who can and who cannot be shown the judgment. Each person notified should understand the embargo (Ellis v John Benson Ltd (Re Breach of Embargo).
Service of claim form out of the jurisdiction
The claimant served a compliant claim form and particulars of claim on the defendant in Poland in compliance with the Hague Service Convention. It provided supporting documents, as well as "forms for responding to the claim" and "any other relevant documents", as required by PD6B para 4.1. There was an error on one of those documents. Since a failure to serve a Response Pack with a claim form doesn't invalidate service, this error didn't prevent service from being effective (Alliance Automotive Procurement Ltd v Auto Zatoka Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia).
Errors of procedure and the scope of CPR 3.10
An error of procedure affecting the court’s jurisdiction cannot be corrected or waived by the court under CPR 3.10. The claimant incorrectly sought an order against a judgment creditor under CPR 71.2 by issuing an application in the High Court instead of the County Court. The High Court had no jurisdiction to make an order. The claimant should have applied to the County Court for an order under CPR 71.2, and also applied for an order to transfer the proceedings from the County Court to the High Court (Zabelin v SPI Spirits (UK) Ltd).
Privilege and the shareholder rule
The Privy Council has held that the so-called “shareholder rule” ought not to continue to be recognised. This rule prevents a company from asserting privilege against its own shareholders except where the documents concerned were created for the dominant purpose of hostile litigation between the company and the shareholders. It could discourage companies from obtaining candid legal advice in confidence and ignores the separate personality of the company (Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 (Bermuda)).
Arbitration appeals
The Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of a contractually agreed time limit for an appeal to the court under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Dismissing an application for permission to appeal, the court confirmed that time for an appeal runs from the date the arbitration award was made and not the date it was notified to the parties (Friedhelm Eronat v CPNC International (Chad) Ltd & Cliveden Petroleum Co Ltd).
Effect of email and WhatsApp negotiations
Binding contracts can be concluded by email and WhatsApp. The fact that the parties intend to sign a further formal contract later doesn't necessarily mean that an earlier agreement isn't binding. A failure to include wording equivalent to “subject to contract”, particularly where the parties are familiar with that concept, may indicate that they intended to be bound by an informal agreement (DAZN Ltd v Coupang, and see also Jaevee Homes Ltd v Fincham (t/a Fincham Demolition)).
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.