Dispute resolution—international Q&A guides

The Lexology Getting the Deal Through (GTDT) guides provide up-to-date, trusted and reliable information on key topics of law and regulation in various jurisdictions, based on contributions from thousands of leading practitioners around the world.

For international dispute resolution, the GTDT guides are supplemented for Singapore with Practice Notes provided by Singapore law firm, Bird & Bird ATMD LLP.

International comparator tool

The International comparator tool is designed to allow lawyers to compare legal differences across two or more jurisdictions in any given practice area. Using information from the Getting the Deal Through Guides, it can generate over two billion answers to your comparison requests. This is a valuable aid to uncover issues in cross-border matters and multi-jurisdictional disputes. See: Practice Note: International Comparator tool.

The questions and answers raised in the International Dispute Resolution guide

When dealing with litigation, the Getting the Deal Through guides provide information in the form of a series of questions and answers. The questions are set out below, followed by links to the various Practice Notes, which deal with each of the guides:

The guide answers

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Court of Appeal confirms narrow scope for post-limitation substitution in wrong defendant cases (Adcamp LLP v Office Properties)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that CPR 19.6(3)(b) does not permit substitution of defendants after expiry of the relevant limitation period where substitution would change the essential facts necessary to establish liability against the substituted defendant. The respondents had issued proceedings against successor firms which acquired the alleged wrongdoer believing that any liabilities had been transferred. When it emerged (or was at least disputed) that liabilities had transferred, they sought to add or substitute the wrongdoer after limitation had expired. The Court of Appeal held that CPR 19.6(3)(b) was not engaged since the substitution would change the claim in substance, as an essential element of the case against the original defendants (the pleaded basis for the acquiring firms’ liability), would be replaced (by the primary liability claim). It was, in effect, a different claim against a different party. The Court of Appeal was clear that any perceived harshness this might cause claimants could not be mitigated by adopting a broad reading of CPR 19.6(3)(b). Rather, it considered that the source of the problem (if any) was caused by earlier, binding Court of Appeal authority confining the ‘mistake’ gateway in CPR 19.6(3)(a) to errors of name (misnomer) and not cases of mistaken identity/legal responsibility. Any solution, if required, would therefore be a matter for the Supreme Court.

193rd Practice Direction update—in force various dates

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 193rd Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Minutes of Commercial Court User Group December 2025 meeting published

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published the minutes of the Commercial Court User Group December 2025 meeting. The meeting reported that overall levels of new claims across the Commercial Court, Admiralty Court and London Circuit Commercial Court remained broadly stable. It noted a continued shift of smaller claims from the Commercial Court to the London Circuit Commercial Court following the revised claims thresholds introduced in June 2025. Despite this, the Commercial Court’s workload remained heavy, reflecting the increasing complexity and length of cases, including a higher number of long trials. The minutes also include updates from the Listing Office on urgent, expedition and paper applications, with reminders on compliance with checklists and proper CE-File practices. Further topics covered lead times for hearings, arbitration-related claims, developments in the London Circuit Commercial Court, concerns regarding embargoed judgments under CPR PD 40E, the ongoing review of disclosure in the Business and Property Courts including the use of technology assisted review and AI, updates on the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts’ (SIFoCC’s) international work, continued progress on junior advocacy initiatives, and concluding thanks and congratulations to departing and newly appointed judges.

Carter-Ruck partner can claim costs for failed SRA action

Law360, London: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruled on 9 February 2026 that a Carter-Ruck partner can in principle recover costs from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after she was cleared of disciplinary charges linked to the OneCoin cryptocurrency scam, but said that the High Court should decide how much.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News