header-logo header-logo

08 May 2019
Issue: 7839 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Brexit , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Litigants prefer London

London’s commercial courts have enjoyed a record year despite the approach of Brexit, with 1,012 litigants from 28 countries. 

US, Russian, Kazakh and Ukrainian litigants were prominent across all 258 cases in 2018/19, according to the Commercial Courts Report, published by Portland Disputes specialist litigation consultants. The number of cases rose 63% on the previous year, and the number of litigants increased by 54%.

The figures are good news for London lawyers, who have expressed concern about other jurisdictions stealing London’s crown post-Brexit. They show that London remains the forum of choice, despite competition from courts such as Singapore International Commercial Court.

Philip Hall, head of Portland’s disputes practice, said: ‘The coming years will be interesting as courts in London and around the world adapt their offers to the changing demands of international businesses in dispute.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll