Global claim meaning

This Checklist reviews acceptance and disclosure of Part 36 offers in split trial matters, drawing attention to extra considerations for the parties. It also addresses the costs consequences of putting forward a split liability only offer. For detailed guidance on Part 36 offers in split trial scenarios, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—split trial cases. For further guidance on accepting a Part 36 offer more generally, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—how and when to accept a Part 36 offer. Scenario Guidance Accepting a Part 36 offer that concerns only certain elements of the claim or specific issues to be resolved (eg accepting a Part 36 offer on liability alone where a trial on liability is to take place). A Part 36 offer limited to particular parts or issues within the claim cannot be accepted once the trial (in this instance, on liability) has been determined, even if other aspects of the case (such as quantum) are still to be ultimately decided (CPR 36.12(2))...

A trio of judges has overturned a High Court finding that compensation proceedings brought for 13,000 villagers against Shell Plc must be run as a so‑called ‘all or nothing’ (or global) action. Justices David Bean, Stephen Males and Jeremy Stuart‑Smith signalled their conclusion on 11 October 2024 at the end of a four‑day hearing. A detailed written judgment will follow in due course. Counsel for the claimants contended that the lower court’s approach compelled farmers and fishers from the Bille and Ogale communities in the Niger delta to connect Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary with every episode of entrenched pollution in the region, failing which their cases would collapse. Leigh Day, acting for the two communities, told the court this stance would, in practice, render it near impossible for people to bring environmental proceedings following repeated pollution incidents in the years ahead and in the area, unless they could demonstrate that the same polluter was accountable for all environmental harm that has impacted them...

Green Lane Association Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2025] EWHC 2251 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The Aarhus costs protection scheme in CPR 46, Pt IX limits the adverse costs exposure of unsuccessful claimants in “Aarhus Convention claims”. The first real-world consequence of this judgment is the High Court’s renewed emphasis on the rigidity of the relevant procedural requirements where defendants intend to dispute either the availability of costs protection or, if it applies, the appropriate ceiling on adverse costs. If a defendant neglects to contest a claim’s Aarhus status in its acknowledgement of service, any later bid to revisit that point will be tested against Denton, and such attempts will be on the back foot, particularly in the absence of a cogent justification. The second consequence is that, following the interpretation of “Aarhus Convention claim” and “provision of national law relating to the environment” in HM Treasury v Global Feedback [2025] EWCA Civ 624, statutory challenges to the making of experimental (and other)...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International Arbitration Sector-and industry-specific arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Arbitration Bill receives Royal Assent, strengthening England and Wales as an arbitration hub The Arbitration Bill secured Royal Assent from His Majesty the King on 24 February 2025, and now takes effect as the Arbitration Act 2025. This targeted refinement of the Arbitration Act 1996 further consolidates London’s standing as a premier arbitration seat. See News Analysis: Arbitration Bill receives Royal Assent, strengthening England and Wales as an arbitration hub and LNB News 25/02/2025 7. Court of Appeal—final anti-suit injunction varied to avoid Russian court penalty In UniCredit v RusChemAlliance [2025] EWCA Civ 99, the Court of Appeal modified a final anti-suit injunction, removing the injunctive relief while keeping a declaration that...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains the transitional arrangements for CPR 36 following its April 2015 re-write. It belongs to a collection of Practice Notes created for the joint LexisNexis and St Philips Commercial seminar series on the changes to Part 36 held in Leeds, Birmingham and London in January 2015. To obtain all supporting materials and the recording of the April 2015 London Part 36 session, please visit our LexisNexis Dispute Resolution blog and register. For additional Practice Notes in this suite on the updated CPR 36, refer to the related content links on the right-hand side. What is happening and when? The new CPR 36 took effect in full on 6 April 2015 and applies to every Part 36 offer made on or after 6 April 2015. Nevertheless, several of the new rules also apply (from 6 April 2015) to Part 36 offers that were made before that date. Below we identify those provisions and...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Claimant worked for the Respondent [ at its [ insert details, eg London office ] ] in the role of [ insert job title, eg receptionist ] from [ insert date ] until they were dismissed on [ insert date ]. The Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a global law firm ]. [ The Contract of Employment ] [ The Claimant’s employment contract provided for a notice period of [ insert details, eg three months ]. ] [ Insert any other contractual provisions of relevance, eg clauses addressing absence management rules or procedures pertinent to the issues raised. ] [ Insert details of any claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 1 or 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. ] [ The Respondent’s...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Respondent employed the Claimant in the role of [ insert job title, eg ‘a financial analyst’ or ‘an insurance sales manager’ ] from [ insert start date of employment ] until [ end date of employment ], [ based at the Respondent’s [ insert details of particular office or location, eg ‘London Headquarters in Canary Wharf ] ]. The Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a global investment bank ]...

[ Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3: ] It is [ accepted OR not accepted OR denied ] that the Claimant worked for the Respondent as [ insert job title, eg ‘a financial analyst’ or ‘an insurance sales manager’ ] from [ insert start date of employment ] until [ end date of employment ] [ at its [ insert details of particular office or location, eg ‘London Headquarters in Canary Wharf’ ] ]. It is [ accepted ] that the Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a global investment bank ]. The Respondent disputes that the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed [ and/or wrongfully dismissed ], as alleged or at all. [ [ EXAMPLE A (Response to alleged breach of term of trust and confidence): ] It is acknowledged that the Claimant’s contract of employment, dated [ insert date ], contained an implied term that the Respondent would not, without reasonable and proper cause, act...