Dispute Resolution analysis: A billionaire client (C) has been successful in an application in the High Court for an assessment of a series of invoices totalling more than USD 35 million, raised by C’s legal representative US firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (D).

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Dolfin v Firestone concerned two applications, one by the joint special administrators of a company in special administration pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (IBSAR 2011), SI 2011/245 seeking approval of a wide-ranging ‘protocol’ governing the conduct of the administration, and the other by clients of that company seeking a direction for an interim distribution of client moneys and a declaration that the administrators had not performed their function of returning client assets as quickly or efficiently as was reasonably practicable. The court did not approve the protocol. The administrators, as experienced professionals, could not expect to receive the court’s protection across such a spread of issues. Nor would the court make a declaration as part of the directions procedure where the issues were best suited for trial. Although an order for interim distribution was made, the court noted the possibility of seeking a Benjamin order for a more focussed protection. Written by Piers Digby, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Banking & Finance analysis: What did the Commercial Court decide in Canary Wharf Finance plc v Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd? Emma Millington, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Banking & Finance team, considers the recent decision by the Commercial Court as to whether a prepayment was a mandatory prepayment or voluntary prepayment under the terms and conditions of mortgage-backed debentures and whether a premium was payable to the Noteholders as a result.

Family analysis: What lessons can practitioners learn from the court’s judgment in Re C (A Child) (Procedural Requirements of a Part 25 Application)? Gillian Stanley, barrister at 1 Garden Court, discusses the importance for family law practitioners to observe and comply with procedural requirements at all times.

Banking and Finance analysis: Who has security rights over tax credits paid to a company which subsequently enters into insolvency proceedings? Andrew Ayres QC and James Kinman, barristers at Maitland Chambers, London, discuss their recent case of Plant and another v Vision Games 1 Ltd and others.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed Shorts International Ltd’s appeal against the rejection of its trade mark infringement and passing off claims concerning Google’s YouTube Shorts service. The court held that ‘shorts’ was descriptive of short-form audiovisual content generally, not merely short films, with the consequence that SIL’s figurative marks enjoyed only narrow protection and similarities arising from descriptive elements carried limited weight. Google’s use of ‘Shorts’ did not create a likelihood of confusion, SIL had not proved the requisite UK reputation, and the ‘SHORTSTV’ word mark was invalid. The decision underlines the evidential and enforcement difficulties facing brand owners relying on descriptive terminology in fast-moving media and technology markets. Produced in partnership with Suzan Moss of HGF Ltd.

TMT analysis: This case involves the applicants (including members of the Davidoff family and two companies that operate the Davidoff family property management business) (the Applicants) bringing an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order against the respondent, Google LLC, in an attempt to identify the authors of anonymous reviews posted on Trustpilot. The court held that Google LLC was not sufficiently ‘mixed up in the wrongdoing’ in order to be compelled to disclose the information sought by the Applicants. The judgment analyses the current authorities on what amounts to being ’mixed up’ in the wrongdoing which, as Mr Justice Nicklin admits, ‘are not perhaps as clear as they might be’. Perhaps more interesting and relevant for practitioners is the emphasis Nicklin J placed on sufficient evidence to establish the ‘wrong’ carried out against the Applicants, a pivotal element of a Norwich Pharmacal application. In this case, the Applicants asserted claims in defamation and malicious falsehood but advanced these arguments on a substantially inferential basis, which was largely considered to be insufficient. Written by Amber Courtier, associate at Carter-Ruck.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Did a bankrupt’s gift-giving amount to fraudulent transactions? Christopher Brockman, barrister at Enterprise Chambers, advises that the case of Re Robin Farrell reminds office-holders of the need to examine the entire factual context at the time of any gift when seeking to set it aside under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Personal Injury analysis: Bryan Thomas, barrister at Civitas Law, describes two clinical negligence cases in which he acted for the claimant, but which had different outcomes as a result of the courts’ assessment of the expert evidence. In Arksey v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the High Court found the evidence by the claimant’s expert fell far below the standard to be expected of a reasonable, competent expert witness with at one stage the expert even using an expletive. In Smith v Royal Liverpool Hospitals NHS Trust, the County Court preferred the claimant’s expert and found the defendant’s expert to be ‘inflexible’.

This Practice Note provides an understanding of why management information (MI) is needed and how it should be formatted and distributed to achieve: • a change in behaviour of managers, and • improved financial performance Why do you need management information? All businesses require MI to: • to track performance against budget, and • identify any deviations away from budget as early as possible By definition, MI is information on things that the recipient can change. You should not distribute information simply because it is interesting to the reader but because it can be used to improve performance. Most law firms have been distributing MI for years, yet there may be no real evidence this has improved business efficiency or performance. It might therefore be time to look again at what MI is being distributed and identify improvements. Before the advent of computers, the vast majority of law firms had very little MI and it was just left to partners to maximise their billings each year. Given that

This Practice Note is intended for law firms. It explains why time recording is so important. It also explores best practice around time recording and considers the impact on write-offs if more time is captured. Why do law firms need to record time? The primary reason for recording time is to understand the cost of the work being undertaken. It is therefore necessary to record all time spend on a client’s matter—whether this time can be billed is a separate issue and must only be considered at the point of billing. Law firms often confuse time recording with billing. As a consequence, many lawyers discount their time twice: • at the point of recording, and • when the lawyer comes to bill the client Increasingly, clients do not usually want to pay on a time basis as this might encourage inefficient working. It is now common for work to be charged on a fixed fee basis, which leads fee earners to question whether it is necessary to record their

Immigration analysis: In an appeal from the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) (IAC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) (IAC) has held that, late admission of evidence, and a party’s consistent failure to comply with multiple court directions, made it reasonable for a judge to exclude evidence. The FTT’s refusal to provide an adjournment was not an error. Nor was their refusal to consider the evidence based on its ‘relevance’ or ‘importance’. The case underscores the significance of strict procedural rigour from the parties at the FTT. Failure to comply with court directions, admit evidence in time, or provide requests for extension of time, are all likely to have serious consequences. Produced in partnership with Parvez Anwar of Internations Legal LLP.