<?xml version="1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet title = "XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="/RSS/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><docs>https://s1-uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/WLN-PLCUK-SC_2605.1.2002/productViews/plcuk/</docs><category>Legal updates</category><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com</link><title>Dispute Resolution</title><description>Dispute Resolution</description><item><title>Court of Appeal confirms that hourly rate contentious business agreements require certainty</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I35e8c6b8601611f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I35e8c6b8601611f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes [2026] EWCA Civ 698, the Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal, finding that the requirement for a contentious business agreement (CBA) to be certain (as identified in Chamberlain v Boodle &amp; King [1982] 1 WLR 1443) was not dispensed with by amendments to the Solicitors Act 1974 made by section 98 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which permitted hourly rate CBAs.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I35e8c6b8601611f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New guidance and principles for remote hearings published by judiciary (June 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I534ac2a2618811f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I534ac2a2618811f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 4 June 2026, the Judiciary published updated guidance on remote participation in hearings. The guidance comprises new Remote Participation Judicial Principles and Overarching Guidance for Remote Participation, alongside updated jurisdictional guidance for all court and tribunal jurisdictions.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I534ac2a2618811f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Mr Justice Waksman appointed Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court (June 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iedab80e3605d11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iedab80e3605d11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 2 June 2026, the judiciary published an announcement stating that the President of the King’s Bench Division has appointed Mr Justice Waksman as Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court from 1 September 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iedab80e3605d11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Chancery Division to be replaced by new Business and Property Division (June 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I23bca0f75f4211f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I23bca0f75f4211f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 2 June 2026, the judiciary published a joint announcement from the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor confirming the establishment of a new Business and Property Division of the High Court. Under the plans, the new division will replace the Chancery Division and stand alongside the King's Bench and Family Divisions.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I23bca0f75f4211f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>HMCTS publishes updated guidance on completing case administration tasks in MyHMCTS (May 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ieb22733b5f6e11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ieb22733b5f6e11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 29 May 2026, HMCTS published updated guidance on completing case administration tasks in MyHMCTS aimed at professional users.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ieb22733b5f6e11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Solicitors admonished for relying on misleading AI-generated material in correspondence with court (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b340c425ab311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b340c425ab311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Cork and another v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), the court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its supervising solicitors after two letters which contained misleading AI-generated material, including hallucinated statutory text, were submitted to the court in connection with an insolvency application. Having applied the guidance in R (Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the judge concluded that public admonishment in his judgment, together with the firm's self-referral to the SRA, was an appropriate response.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b340c425ab311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Issue estoppel in foreign law claim governed by applicable law under Rome II, not English law (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I619285935b2e11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I619285935b2e11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Aviator LLC and others v Spribe Oü and others [2026] EWHC 1216 (Ch), the High Court held that under the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Regulation (EC) 864/2007), the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment on claims for infringement of intellectual property rights governed by foreign law is determined by the relevant foreign law, not English law as the law of the forum. This is the first authority on this issue.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I619285935b2e11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Free Practical Law training for all subscribers</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>Practical Law provides free training on how to use Practical Law more effectively. This is available in a variety of formats, including live webinars and training videos.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I56cd5e505a7c11f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>195th PD update: amendments to PD 51ZB (Damages Claims Pilot)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2dd855cb593f11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2dd855cb593f11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 26 May 2026, the 195th Practice Direction (PD) update was published. It amends PD 51ZB (Damages Claims Pilot) with effect from 27 May 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2dd855cb593f11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Power to strike out appeal notices under CPR 52.18 confined to situations arising after permission granted (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I49b5b53f59d011f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I49b5b53f59d011f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Hamer v Levy [2026] EWCA Civ 662, the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal but then dismissed the appeal against a circuit judge's order striking out an appeal notice. The court held that although the circuit judge's approach of striking out the appeal notice, under CPR 52.18 (rather than determining the permission application), was procedurally flawed, the outcome was neither wrong nor unjust.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I49b5b53f59d011f18ebba5f5b5f97226/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>CFA's express termination provisions precluded unjust enrichment claim for failure of basis following client's repudiatory breach (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b43598f590311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b43598f590311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In The Winros Partnership (Formerly known as Rosenblatt Solicitors) v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2026] EWCA Civ 654, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the assessment of solicitors' bills.The court held that a conditional fee agreement's express termination provisions precluded a claim in unjust enrichment based on failure of basis.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7b43598f590311f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>New in-house content: horizon scanning</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published an article highlighting what's on the agenda for in-house lawyers in June 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I68128f2557ec11f1a83fe84dcd0bf6af/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>BSB publishes guidance on the use of AI and other technologies (May 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I982f1db254ee11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I982f1db254ee11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 18 May 2026, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) published new guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I982f1db254ee11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court refuses stay and anti-suit injunction in dispute over ship finance agreement with asymmetric jurisdiction clause (Commercial Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9d2235b5539611f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9d2235b5539611f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Spec 1 Ltd v Export-Import Bank of China [2026] EWHC 1162 (Comm), the High Court dismissed the defendant lender's application to stay English proceedings in favour of Singapore. It also dismissed the claimant borrowers' applications for anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions. Both sides' applications failed because the asymmetric exclusive jurisdiction clause in the loan agreement they had entered into contemplated parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I9d2235b5539611f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>TCC annual report 2024-2025 published</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iefe72bdf545211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iefe72bdf545211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The Technology and Construction Court's annual report, for the period 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025, has been published.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iefe72bdf545211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Dispute Resolution column: Cryptoassets, conversion and the limits of available remedies </title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iceb63a0e544511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iceb63a0e544511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>We have published a new article to the Dispute Resolution column.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Iceb63a0e544511f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>SEP owner entitled to offer adjustable licence with arbitration mechanism without implementer's prior consent (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Acer Inc v Nokia Technologies OY [2026] EWCA Civ 564, the Court of Appeal considered jurisdiction, case management stay and interim licence declarations in a dispute between implementers (Acer and ASUS) and a standard-essential patent (SEP) owner (Nokia) concerning licences to Nokia's codec SEP portfolio on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms under the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) regime.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ie807fd1752c011f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Section 288 challenge was single statutory challenge (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f626a5452b111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f626a5452b111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Arun District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others [2026] EWHC 1172, the High Court looked at whether a section 288 challenge was a single statutory claim or separate claims against separate defendants.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I5f626a5452b111f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Hybrid approach to preliminary issues trial (assuming some facts but requiring court determination of significantly overlapping facts) unworkable (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4d8693754fbe11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4d8693754fbe11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Castleton v Post Office Ltd and another [2026] EWCA Civ 577, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that a "hybrid" approach to a preliminary issues trial (assuming some facts while requiring the court to determine other significantly overlapping facts) was unworkable.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4d8693754fbe11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Law Society publishes response to CJC's consultation on use of AI for preparing court documents (May 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic3217cfc4f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic3217cfc4f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 12 May 2026, the Law Society published a response to the Civil Justice Council's (CJC's) consultation on the use of AI for preparing court documents.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ic3217cfc4f7e11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court of Appeal confirms test for when contract variations "conclude" a new consumer contract for jurisdiction purposes</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c04f724fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c04f724fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL [2026] EWCA Civ 551, the Court of Appeal held, unanimously that, for the purposes of the jurisdiction rules for consumer contracts (sections 15B and 15E, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA)), the test in Hellenic Republic v Nikiforidis (Case C-135/15) (in relation to the identically worded provisions in the Rome I Regulation) applies. A new contract is therefore "concluded" only where a variation has given rise to a new legal relationship, so the initial contract has been replaced by a new contract.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c04f724fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Writs of control: burden of proof in third party claim to goods seized depends on whether seizure resisted (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250fccb84ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250fccb84ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In E.ON UK plc and another v Safe Hosts Internet LLP and others [2026] EWHC 1071 (KB), the High Court analysed where the burden of proof lies in a third party claim to goods seized under a writ of control, finding that the answer depends on whether the seizure was resisted. The court rejected the submission that a High Court Enforcement Officer need only have a reasonable belief that a judgment debtor has an interest in, or is the owner of, the seized goods to effect a seizure.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I250fccb84ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Additional security for costs refused where defendants elected for interim payment on account without reserving right to seek additional security (Commercial Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c02c004fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c02c004fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Magomedov and others v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP and others [2026] EWHC 1051 (Comm), the Commercial Court largely refused an application by two defendants for additional security for the costs of a jurisdiction challenge, made more than a year after judgment, because they had elected for an interim payment on account without indicating that they also sought, or may seek, additional security. The court granted security for the costs of detailed assessment proceedings in respect of which no previous security had been sought and no interim payment made.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia7c02c004fa211f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court of Appeal upholds anti-suit injunctions preventing Russian bank from pursuing claims in Russia to avoid arbitration agreements (English Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In JP Morgan Securities plc and others v VTB Bank PJSC [2026] EWCA Civ 589, the English Court of Appeal dismissed a Russian bank's appeal against anti-suit injunctions restraining it from pursuing claims in the Russian courts against JP Morgan entities in breach of arbitration agreements. The court held that affiliates of the JP Morgan contracting parties could rely on the provision for arbitration contained in JP Morgan's terms of business. Also, the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, being designed to circumvent London arbitration clauses and the UK sanctions regime.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I6da842ce4eb011f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Amendments to CPR 14 regarding withdrawal of pre-action admissions were procedural and therefore had retrospective effect (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I25103d004ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I25103d004ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Industrial Maintenance Engineers (I.M.E Contracts) Ltd v Webster Miller Ltd [2026] EWHC 393 (Comm), the court granted the claimant summary judgment on liability based on a pre-action admission. In reaching this decision, the court held that amendments to CPR 14 in October 2023 were procedural rather than substantive (therefore, applicable retrospectively), and refused the defendant permission to withdraw the admission.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I25103d004ec911f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Civil Procedure Rule Committee: publication of approved minutes of 27 March 2026 meeting</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2ca72d294ebb11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2ca72d294ebb11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>The approved minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting on 27 March 2026 became publicly available on 12 May 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2ca72d294ebb11f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Court has inherent power to order further CPR 71 examination where original order intentionally disobeyed (Court of Appeal)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib8bdfc4c4ec411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib8bdfc4c4ec411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Deutsche Bank AG v Vik [2026] EWCA Civ 581, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a High Court decision refusing to order a further examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor under CPR 71. The court held that where the original CPR 71 order was intentionally disobeyed, the court retains an inherent power to order a further examination, even where the individual has since left the jurisdiction and ceased to be an officer of the judgment debtor.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ib8bdfc4c4ec411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>CPRC consultation on proposed amendments to CPR 27 and PD 27A allowing judges to give directions for matters to be determined on the papers, without the consent of all parties (May 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibaf994d74dd411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibaf994d74dd411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 11 May 2026, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) launched a consultation on draft amendments to CPR 27 and PD 27A allowing judges to give directions for matters to be determined on the papers, without the consent of all parties. The consultation closes on 22 June 2026.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ibaf994d74dd411f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Without-notice imaging order upheld but employer refused access to imaged material in favour of standard disclosure (High Court)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia67c7fe54dd311f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia67c7fe54dd311f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>In Vertical Aerospace Group Ltd v Ngoma [2026] EWHC 1096 (KB), the High Court refused to discharge a without-notice imaging order obtained against a departing employee. The judge dismissed the employer's application for access to the imaged material, holding that disclosure should proceed in the normal way through the employer's solicitors.</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia67c7fe54dd311f18619811f89168d29/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item><item><title>Disclosure Review Working Group to consider simplifying PD 57AD (Disclosure in the Business and Property Courts) (May 2026)</title><link>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia5719b804b6d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia5719b804b6d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 CDT</pubDate><description>On 8 May 2026, the Judiciary published an announcement from the Disclosure Review Working Group (DRWG) explaining that it is considering simplifying the disclosure regime under PD 57AD (Disclosure in the Business and Property Courts).</description><guid>https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Ia5719b804b6d11f1bf8d82e776af4c9e/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29</guid></item></channel></rss>