header-logo header-logo

12 December 2025
Issue: 8143 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 12 December 2025

Contract

Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd v Ivanishvili and others (Bermuda) [2025] UKPC 53

The Privy Council allowed the appellant Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd’s (‘CS Life’) appeal in part, but only regarding the start dates for the assessment of damages for breach of contract. The board dismissed CS Life’s appeal on all other grounds, affirming the findings of the Bermudian courts that CS Life had a contractual obligation to invest policy assets according to the discretionary mandate chosen by the policyholders, which it breached when the assets were instead fraudulently mismanaged by Patrice Lescaudron, a relationship manager at Credit Suisse AG. The board found that CS Life was liable for breach of contract but rejected CS Life’s arguments that it had no relevant contractual duties, that damages should be calculated differently, and that liability should end earlier. The board also dismissed the cross-appeal by the respondent the former Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili and other respondents seeking to restore the Chief Justice’s finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, holding that the claim was time-barred

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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