Global Legal Insights: Litigation & Dispute Resolution(14 Global Legal Insights - Litigation & Dispute Resolution)

R S Surtees, the 19th century novelist, once quipped that there were three types of lawyers: able; unable; and lamentable – a quip as apposite today as it was back then.  From lawyers on TikTok; to lawyers that weaponise the rule of law for lawfare campaigns; to a barrister that cites a case in Court found on the AI programme ChatGPT that never existed.  The role of lawyers in every aspect of life continues to expand, yet the interaction the profession has with modern technology fails to project a commensurate increase in credibility. A number of interesting (real) developments this past year include the decision on jurisdiction in Limbu & Others v Dyson Technology [2024] EWCA Civ 1564, in which a number of Nepali and Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims against three companies in the Dyson group alleging they were trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to conditions including forced labour, assault, and false imprisonment whilst manufacturing components and parts for the Dyson group between 2011 and 2022.  At the relevant time, they were employed by two Malaysian companies who had contracted with a Dyson entity.  The workers commenced proceedings in England against two England-based Dyson entities, as well as a Malaysian-based Dyson entity.  They also indicated an intention to join in their employer entity, also based in Malaysia.  Following a forum non conveniens challenge, the High Court decided that Malaysia was the most appropriate forum.  This was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and permission to appeal the decision was rejected by the Supreme Court.  The Court of Appeal held that the first instance Judge failed to take into account that it was appropriate to bring action in England because: the English entities are based here and have been served as of right; they are the defendants to the ‘primary claim’ and could coordinate the defence of the claim from England; and they are the ‘principal protagonist’ and the Dyson Malaysia entity would be more of a ‘minor and ancillary defendant’.  He also should have taken into account the evidence from the migrant workers of the problems they would face in Malaysia if they were required to litigate there.  The decision could open the gates wider to more ‘supply chain liability’ cases, so long as there is a primary liability against, and a connection to, an English entity. There was also the case of Zaha Hadid v The Zaha Hadid Foundation [2024] EWHC 3325, in which the Court declined to imply a right to terminate in favour of the licensee where only the licensor had an express right to terminate; the Court expressly rejected the submission that unless it implied such a right in favour of the licensor to bring the licence to an end, it would otherwise permit the validity of indefinite contracts. A few eyebrows have been raised at the decision in Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce [2024] EWCA Civ 1330, certainly amongst corporate counsel, on the topic of capped liability.  On a breach of contract claim with a capped liability amount, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the first instance Judge on how he applied a €5m liability cap in the contract.  The Judge decided that Rolls-Royce was owed €8m, reduced to €7.2m with a successful counterclaim in favour of Topalsson of €800k.  The Judge awarded Rolls-Royce the €5m, as the capped sum was in any event less than the net amount.  The Court of Appeal held that his approach was wrong.  In their wisdom, they found that he ought to have applied the €5m cap to his decision on the €8m liability first, and then applied the counterclaim part of his judgment to the capped amount, thus awarding Rolls-Royce €4.2m.  This has sent corporate lawyers back to their boilerplates with more precise language on whether their cap applies to a net liability figure or the gross amount. This book is intended to act as a reference guide for those who wish to explore legal procedures and developments in a variety of jurisdictions.  I am grateful to our team of contributors to this book for their updates.

Table of Contents:
Preface Justin Michaelson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan Expert Analysis Chapters 1 The new model form freezing order Justin Michaelson & Simon Camilleri Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan 7 Navigating the “rough seas” of discretionary denial Kenneth R. Adamo  Law Office of KRAdamo Eugene Goryunov   Brown Rudnick LLP 14 Navigating enforcement against sovereigns in France Patrice Grenier, Alexandre Pouray, Marion Jaëck & Marie Eichwald Grenier Avocats Jurisdiction Chapters 28 Argentina Leandro M. Castelli & Alejo M. Gascón Marval O’Farrell Mairal 39 Austria Dr. Stephan Lenzhofer & Dr. Laura Sophie Moser Herbst Kinsky Rechtsanwälte GmbH 48 Chile Ricardo Reveco, Mónica Pérez, Francisco Chahuán & Victoria De la Cuadra Carey 55 Cyprus Constantinos Clerides, Alexandros Clerides, Antonis Georgiou & George Pasias Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC 66 England & Wales Kambiz Larizadeh & Jay Jamooji Akin 76 Germany Maximilian Reichl Oppenhoff 87 Ghana Gwendy Bannerman, Naa Kwaamah Owusu-Baafi, Lilian Terrko Sakyi & Emmanuel Agyarko-Mintah N. Dowuona & Company | ALN Ghana 101 Greece Spyros G. Alexandris & Charilaos (Harry) Agathos Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners 115 India Ankit Parhar, Dharmendra Chatur, Akshata Benegal & Naman Dutt Poovayya & Co. 125 Japan Shinya Tago, Takuya Uenishi & Landry Guesdon Iwata Godo 139 Liechtenstein Manuel Walser & Daria Tschütscher Walser Attorneys at Law Ltd. 148 Malawi Marshal Chilenga TF and Partners 159 Mexico Miguel Angel Hernandez-Romo Valencia & Miguel Angel Hernandez Romo Foley & Lardner México, S.C. 166 North Macedonia Vladimir Boshnjakovski Boshnjakovski & Grozdanov Law Office 176 South Africa Corlett Manaka, Faith Sikhavhakhavha & Amogelang Magano Werksmans Attorneys 187 Sweden Krister Azelius, Lotta Knapp Lönroth, Olivia Sandin & Cornelia Edefell Azelius & Partners Advokataktiebolag 198 Switzerland Dr Urs Feller & Dr Martin Heisch Prager Dreifuss 211 USA Kenneth R. Adamo  Law Office of KRAdamo Eugene Goryunov   Brown Rudnick LLP