Helen Evans of 4 New Square examines the recent authorities looking at negligently conducted litigation, and asks if change is in store when the topic reaches the Supreme Court in late 2018.

Simon Hale discusses the judgement handed down by the Supreme Court on Thursday 26 July 2018 in the case of Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA [2018] UKSC 43.

In this article Stephen Innes considers the problems caused by Japanese Knotweed and some of the types of legal claims that can be made, in the light of some recent court decisions.

Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey has largely reestablished orthodox principles of how to value bungled litigation, but it may be difficult to apply the exception to those principles which it has derived from the authorities.

Avondale Exhibitions v Arthur J Gallagher concerned a claim by a company against its insurance broker arising from an insurer’s decision to decline cover.
In giving judgment for the defendant insurance broker, HHJ Keyser Q.C. (i) endorsed the statements of David Steel J in Jones v Environcom Limited [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm) and Flaux Jin Synergy Health (UK) Limited v CGU Insurance Plc [2010] EWHC 2583 (Comm) as to the scope of an insurance broker’s duties, and (ii) held that the lack of expert evidence significantly limited, albeit did not altogether exclude, the possibility of a finding that the insurance broker had acted in breach of its duty to exercise reasonable skill and care.
Clare Dixon of 4 New Square, instructed by Simmons & Simmons, successfully represented Arthur J Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited. The decision is considered by Katie Powell of 4 New Square.