Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered appeals from a series of personal injury cases brought in England against a Spanish insurer. Damages had been assessed by English lower courts applying Spanish law pursuant to the provision of Rome II. The appeals concerned whether interest, payable at very high rates applied by the Spanish Insurance Contract Act (Act 50/1980), should be ordered to be paid to the claimants as part of their damages. Lower English courts had divergent reasonings, relating to the difference between matters of procedural law and those of substantive law (the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) for the purposes of private international law and for the interpretation of Articles 1 and 15 of Rome II. Angharad Parry, Barrister at Twenty Essex considers the judgment and its implications .

Dispute Resolution analysis: the Court of Appeal has found that a lender was estopped from relying upon an all monies clause in a mortgage of one property to recover the balance of the mortgage of another property, but that interest accruing post judgment remained secured against both properties. Issues of estoppel by convention and procedural estoppel both considered.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision permitting Playtech to serve trade secrets and copyright proceedings on Latvian defendants Realtime SIA and Igors Veliks outside the jurisdiction. Playtech alleged that Veliks accessed confidential pre-release game information via the Horizon platform after leaving its Latvian affiliate and that Realtime used this information to develop competing games. However, it was held that all alleged acts occurred in Latvia and that Playtech’s claimed UK losses were merely indirect economic effects. As a result, the claim failed to pass through Gateway 21, which requires direct damage within the jurisdiction or an English-law obligation of confidence. Applying Rome II, Latvian law governed the claim. The Court of Appeal also found that England was not the appropriate forum for the related copyright claim, whose centre of gravity was likewise Latvia. Permission to serve out was therefore set aside.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal, relying on the Supreme Court decision Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, against an order dismissing a defendant’s challenge under CPR 11 to the jurisdiction of the English High Court in a multi-party claim framed in conspiracy and fraud. The general principle in Vedanta was that while the avoidance of multiple proceedings and inconsistent judgments was not a trump card (decisive), it was very important and where a claimant is likely to continue proceedings in England against the anchor defendant, it has frequently been considered decisive. However, the specific principle, in Vedanta was that it argued successfully that the Vedanta claimants were not entitled to the benefit of that powerful factor where they had brought the risk of a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments on themselves. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether MCM had elected for the Singaporean jurisdiction by making an application for pre-action disclosure there against Straits—or whether MCM was free to change its mind about jurisdiction. Further, whether by taking these steps in Singapore, MCM had brought the risk of multiplicity of proceedings on themselves. Written by Mr Lauren Godfrey, barrister, at Hardwicke.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed VTB’s appeal and upheld anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions restraining Russian proceedings designed to recover assets frozen under UK sanctions. Construing the contractual framework as a whole, it held that non-signatory JPM Group Entities could enforce the London arbitration clauses and that the relevant provisions were not inconsistent. Claims framed in Russian tort law, including those against JPM Russia, were nevertheless vexatious and oppressive because they sought substantively to enforce English-law contractual obligations while circumventing the agreed arbitral forum and the UK sanctions regime. The decision is an important practitioner authority on contractual consistency, sufficient interest, comity and anti-suit relief in sanctions-related disputes. Produced in partnership with Ben Channer of 3 Hare Court Temple.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This was a case in which the claimant failed to file Form N510 (Notice for Service out of the jurisdiction where permission of the court is not required) before purporting to serve the claim form. Form N510 was subsequently filed but the court’s permission for service was required under CPR 6.34(2)(b). The judge at first instance had been persuaded that permission under CPR 6.34(2)(b) should be considered by reference to CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions). The Court of Appeal disagreed. It clarified that if a claimant has failed to file court form N510 there has been no valid service of the claim and therefore the proceedings have not commenced. The correct route for the claimant in such circumstances, applying analogous authorities, is to make an application under CPR 7.6(3) for retrospective permission to serve the claim form. This is a specific rule applicable when dealing with late service of the claim form and cannot be circumvented by reliance on more general rules such as CPR 3.9 or CPR 3.10 (the court’s power to rectify an error of procedure.

Dispute Resolution analysis: the Court of Appeal has provided a clear analysis of the authorities on the extent to which a claimant can be awarded damages for loss of capital value resulting from nuisance. The analysis concludes that loss of amenity and loss of capital value are ‘simply different ways of calculating the same loss’. Thus Patten LJ dismissed the defendants’ appeal against an award of £155,000 for diminution in capital value but removed the additional £20,000 general damages award for distress and inconvenience. The fact that the Recorder had also ordered injunctive relief did not prevent him from considering and awarding as he had damages for nuisance and harassment at common law.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal was asked to consider the cost consequences of a withdrawn contempt application. The application had been made in respect of an alleged breach of an injunction granted to the applicant in the context of a partnership dispute between the parties regarding the running of a caravan park. The court held that contempt applications were not subject to any special rules, but were governed by the general costs rules that applied to civil claims. The application had been withdrawn and therefore the respondent to the contempt application (the appellant in the appellate proceedings (the ‘appellant’)) was the successful party. The starting point, pursuant to CPR 44.2, was that the appellant should be awarded her costs. In considering whether to depart from this starting point, the court was required to consider all of the circumstances of the claim, including that the allegations that formed the basis of the contempt application had not been proven, nor were they admitted. Accordingly, the appellant was the successful party and there was no reason to depart from the starting point that costs follow the event. The appellant was awarded her costs of the contempt application. Part of these were ordered to be paid on the indemnity basis. Written by John Meehan, barrister at Kenworthy’s Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: On 10 July 2025, the Court of Appeal (Males, Falk and Zacaroli LJJ) unanimously dismissed an appeal against an order holding that the English court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim against three New Zealand companies regarding various letters of indemnity. David Bailey KC and James Goudkamp represented the successful respondents/defendants. The court’s decision constitutes the leading modern articulation of the law governing undisclosed principals, and is a landmark judgment in the law of agency more generally.

Lord Justice Jackson has set out four principles on the parol evidence rule and admissibility of extrinsic evidence where issues of identity of contracting parties are involved. The case also provides an illustration of when the Court of Appeal will refuse to admit fresh evidence on an appeal, following the criteria in Ladd v Marshall and that of CPR 52.11, and with reference to issues of fairness and proportionality under the amended CPR 1.1.

Tax analysis: In Impact Contracting Solutions Ltd (ICS), the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal (UT) decision that HMRC has the power to deregister a taxable person for reasons related to tax fraud, even if the taxpayer makes other legitimate taxable supplies, provided that the deregistration is a proportionate step in the circumstances.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal ordered that a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) should be varied to remove the injunctive element but maintain a declaration that the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The applicant bank (UniCredit) would otherwise have incurred a significant penalty from the Russian court. The original ASI had prevented the respondent (RCA) (who had breached the Paris-seated arbitration clause) from bringing proceedings in Russia. The court confirmed that CPR 3.1 (the court’s general powers of management) and CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) provide the court with powers to vary or revoke an ASI, if the commercial situation allows. There is no material distinction between where the order is an interim vs a final order and a pragmatic approach will be afforded when considering factors related to the application, namely (i) if the applicant has been coerced, (ii) English public policy and (iii) the impact if the application is not granted. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.