We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 16

UK Supreme Court confirms corporate veil can be pierced in some circumstances

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 13 2013

The Supreme Court has confirmed that a court can in very limited circumstances pierce the corporate veil. According to Lord Sumption, the principle

Supreme Court refuses to pierce corporate veil in VTB Capital Plc’s jurisdiction appeal

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 6 2013

The Supreme Court has today unanimously refused to pierce the corporate veil in order to treat an alleged fraudster as a party to a contract entered

Supreme Court hearing on jurisdiction issues in VTB capital

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 12 2012

Starting today, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation and others 2012 EWCA Civ 808

Supreme court hearing in Prudential starts today

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 5 2012

The Supreme Court is set to hear Prudential’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s much-publicised decision from October 2010 which confirmed that legal professional privilege did not extend to advice on tax law given by accountants, or anyone other than members of the legal professions (ie qualified solicitors, barristers or foreign lawyers): R (on the application of Prudential PLC & Anor) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor 2010 EWCA Civ 1094 (see post

Part 36 offers in context of counterclaims and negative declarations

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 30 2012

A recent High Court judgment highlights the scope for confusion in applying Part 36 in a case where the formal roles of claimant and defendant do not reflect the reality of who is seeking a (greater) remedy in financial terms: The Procter & Gamble Company v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another 2012 EWHC 2839 (Ch

Commercial Court upholds “no set-off” clause

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 18 2012

In a recent decision, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on a seller’s claim for approximately US$12 million as the price due under a commercial supply contract

Court of Appeal considers confidentiality obligations of in-house lawyers

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 28 2012

The Court of Appeal has considered whether and in what circumstances a former employed lawyer will be restrained from acting adverse to a former employer in order to protect that former employer’s confidential information: Generics (UK) Limited v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd 2012 EWCA Civ 726

Personal service on director not valid where company not present in jurisdiction

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 1 2011

The Court of Appeal has held that a foreign company which does not carry on business within England and Wales cannot be validly served by leaving a claim form with a director who is within the jurisdiction: SSL International Plc and another v TTK LIG Limited and others 2011 EWCA Civ 1170

No joint privilege for conspiring shareholder

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 1 2011

A company is not generally entitled to assert privilege against its shareholders, since they have a joint interest in the advice received

Court of Appeal reigns in "loss of a chance" approach in commercial claims

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 12 2010

In Law Debenture Trust Corporation PLC v Elektrim SA 2010 EWCA Civ 1142, the Court of Appeal has suggested that the courts should not be too ready to apply the "loss of a chance" approach to assessing damages in a commercial case