header-logo header-logo

04 October 2013 / Clare Arthurs , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7578 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Better connected

istock_000002498266medium

When it comes to forum shopping, every little (fact) counts, say Richard Marshall & Clare Arthurs

London appears increasingly popular as a centre for international litigation, particularly among litigants from the former Soviet Republic. You might be forgiven for thinking that international litigants have open access to the UK courts, irrespective of how tenuous the connection might be between the circumstances of their case and this jurisdiction. Recent cases however suggest that international forum shoppers may now be swimming against the tide.

View from the top

In VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] All ER (D) 47 (Feb) the Supreme Court refused VTB Capital (VTB) permission to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction, on the basis that England was not the proper forum for the resolution of the dispute. It was not however a clear cut decision: Lord Clarke and Lord Reed dissented from the majority view, held by Lords Neuberger, Mance and Wilson. Unpicking these judgments provides useful guidance on how the courts will approach the thorny issue

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll