header-logo header-logo

21 January 2022
Issue: 7963 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 21 January 2022

Conflict of laws

‘Maduro Board’ of the Central Bank of Venezuela v ‘Guaidó Board’ of the ­Central Bank of Venezuela [2021] UKSC 57, [2021] All ER (D) 72 (Dec)

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal in part and dismissed the counter-appeal in proceedings concerning the effect of the disputed presidency of Venezuela. The respondent board favoured the previous president (M), while the appellant board favoured the interim president (G). Both sides claimed to act on behalf of the Central Bank of Venezuela, with regard to gold reserves held in the UK. The court held that declarations would be made that the UK Government (HMG) had, since 4 February 2019, recognised G as the constitutional interim President of Venezuela until credible presidential elections could be held. HMG had, since 4 February 2019, not recognised M as President of Venezuela for any purpose. Further, the proceedings would be remitted to the Commercial Court for it to consider whether the judgments of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice should be recognised or given effect

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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