United Kingdom: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The English High Court has issued groundbreaking guidance on legal advice privilege, addressing whether internal communications within a corporate client group can be protected when created for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

This decision tree has been prepared as a quick reference to help determine which documents can be withheld on grounds of privilege under English law.

In the High Court’s decision in Serendipity Centre Ltd v. Tinson, [2026] EWHC 349 (Ch), the court held that privilege could not be asserted against a former director over certain documents...

The Commercial Court’s decision in Integra Petrochemicals Europe AG v BASF SE confirms that parties cannot use foreign proceedings or the New York Convention to mount a collateral attack on an English-seated...

The UK Supreme Court's ruling in Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Limited addresses a critical question in insurance law: does a "deliberate acts" exclusion clause encompass reckless conduct, or only intentional acts?

When contracts lack express termination rights, parties may seek alternative legal grounds to avoid unfavorable terms. This article examines three key doctrines—misrepresentation, mistake, and illegality—exploring how each operates, the circumstances under which they apply, and the practical limitations courts impose when parties attempt to void contractual obligations through these mechanisms.

Understanding the distinction between breach of contract and negligence is crucial for businesses navigating legal disputes. While both involve wrongdoing, they differ fundamentally in their source, scope, and the parties who can bring claims. This article examines when contractual failures cross into negligent conduct and how the two legal concepts can overlap in practice.

When contracts lack express termination rights, parties may seek alternative legal grounds to avoid unfavorable terms. This article examines three key doctrines—misrepresentation, mistake, and illegality—exploring how each operates, the circumstances under which they apply, and the practical limitations courts impose when parties attempt to void contractual obligations through these mechanisms.

We reported on this case in Dispatch, Issue 302. RNH sought the summary enforcement of a “smash and grab” adjudicator’s decision in its favour for £665k. Mr and Mrs James said that the contract in question was a construction contract with a residential occupier, so the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Enforcing arbitral awards against sovereign States presents complex strategic and practical challenges, particularly when navigating sovereign immunity arguments, cross-border asset identification, and multi-jurisdictional enforcement proceedings. A recent London International Disputes Week discussion examined these issues through the lens of the landmark Zhongshan v. Nigeria case, where a Chinese investor successfully secured and enforced a USD 70 million investment arbitration award against an African Sta

On 4 March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (the "Supreme Court") held in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd that Spain...

Kingdom of Spain (Appellant) v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and another (Respondents); Republic of Zimbabwe (Appellant) v Border Timbers Ltd and another (Respondents) [2026] UKSC 9, 4 March 2026...