This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 171st Practice Direction update and the Court of Appeal decision in Signature Litigation LLP v Ivanishvili (solicitor and client’s costs); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 163rd Practice Direction update to the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal decision in Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Warren (expert evidence and relief from sanctions); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the speech of the President of the King’s Bench Division at the Mayflower Lecture 2025 on artificial intelligence and the Court of Appeal decision in Afan Valley Ltd v Lupton Fawcett LLP (appeals); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Ministry of Justice’s ninth annual report on the implementation of Law Commission proposals and the Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd; Nathanael Eurl Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd (limitation); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: a note that the evolving US-Israel conflict with Iran could lead to increased client demand for advice and analysis of judicial decisions including the High Court decisions in Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Neidle (application—specific) and Car-Wizard Ltd v Vixen Surface Treatments Ltd (evidence and disclosure).

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Master of the Rolls announcing an update to the Guideline Hourly Rates and the Court of Appeal decision in Alame v Shell Plc (formerly known as Royal Dutch Shell Plc) (class actions and disclosure); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s legal statement on liability for artificial intelligence harms under English and Welsh private law and the Court of Appeal decisions in Carl v Limbani (cost orders) and Kerish International Motors Agency v Opel Automobile GmbH (cross-border disputes); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Law Society’s interim report on its 21st Century Project and the Supreme Court decision in Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) (assessment of damages); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s publication of its form for out of hours applications to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and the Court of Appeal decision in Robertson v Google (cross-border disputes); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Court of Appeal—retrospective applications to extend time for the appellant's notice analogous to relief from sanctions applications The Court of Appeal has held applications for a retrospective extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal are analogous to relief from sanctions applications. As such, the principles set out in Mitchell and Denton apply. The analogy applies due to 12 years' of authorities which have established there is an implied sanction in failing to comply with the time-limits set out in CPR 52.4(2), namely the loss of ability to seek to pursue an appeal. This judgment is particularly useful to practitioners in clarifying any misunderstandings on the meaning or effect of CPR 52.4 and/or CPR 52.6. It also addresses particular considerations, including public law versus private law, public bodies, litigants in person, funding problems, merits of the substantive appeal, etc in the context of late notices of appeal and case management compliance. Judgment and analysis • Judgment: R (on the application of Hysaj)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Court of Appeal—continuing breach and concurrent causes of action The Court of Appeal has considered issues of continuing breach as a concurrent cause of action in seeking to apportion liability for losses in light of an indemnity in a share sale agreement which rendered the seller liable for losses arising out of services provided before the transfer date. The issue was whether the pre-transfer negligence was considered to be a breach of duty continuing to occur after the transfer from day to day, such that daily a new cause of action arose which would mean that there was a concurrent cause of action alongside the indemnified breach which, per EE Caledonia, would prevent the appellant relying on the indemnity. The majority view, differing from the first instance decision, held that there was no continuing breach thus no concurrent cause of action and the indemnity could therefore be relied on after the transfer date up until new fresh causes of action arose (as they

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in a solicitors' negligence case on the ground that the loss of chance element of the damages claim was too remote. The trial judge found that Lewis Silkin LLP had breached their duty in failing to advise their client about the inclusion of a jurisdiction clause in his contract of employment with a franchisee of the Indian Premier League's Twenty20 series. The absence of a jurisdiction clause meant that in his subsequent litigation with the franchisee as to a severance payment, the client was subjected to (albeit ultimately unsuccessful) jurisdiction challenges by the franchisee, which delayed his ultimately obtaining judgment for the severance pay of £10 million. The client pleaded that had Lewis Silkin advised on jurisdiction then an exclusive jurisdiction clause would have been included in the employment contract. Had that been so, then the client would have obtained judgment for the severance payment earlier than he did (because there