Substantive examination meaning

Re Farfetch Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] EWHC 3340 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling sets out pragmatic points for insolvency practitioners. JOLS should employ a phased method to gathering information, with the court entertaining applications only where initial steps are inadequate. Written questions ought to be tried and exhausted before any oral examination, and a clear explanation is required for why written answers alone would not be adequate. The court articulated a workable scheme to address confidentiality, including requiring liquidation committee members to give formal acknowledgements of their confidentiality duties. In cross‑border situations, jurisdiction must be determined before liquidators seek orders against individuals living abroad. Resolving jurisdiction early is crucial before advancing substantive applications. Practitioners must provide cogent evidence of possession when seeking document production orders. Courts may adopt a practical stance by preserving potentially relevant electronic data while postponing decisions about searching it. What was the background?...

What are the practical implications of the case? In The Republic of India v CC Devas (Mauritius) Ltd and others, the Commercial Court ruled on an application by the Republic of India under AA 1996, s 45. For practitioners, the significance lies in its examination (within an s 45 application) of how far a court may intervene in an ongoing investor-state arbitration. Against a backdrop the judgment called ‘complex and highly contentious’, the Commercial Court addressed whether it was constrained by the Tribunal’s procedural orders when determining who may consent to bringing an application under AA 1996, s 45. The Court held it was not constrained by those orders because, unlike the Tribunal—which had approached the question by reference to international law and the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as the arbitration’s substantive law—the English court was required to apply English law and English public policy to matters of procedure: procedural issues are governed by the law of the seat, ie, English law. Consequently, a court’s consideration of procedural questions...

This tracker sets out the key decisions and information relating to the proceedings concerning: patent applications for inventions claimed to be created by DABUS (device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience), an AI ‘creativity machine’ developed by Dr Stephen Thaler a copyright registration for an image generated by Thaler’s ‘creativity machine’ It records pivotal rulings in the UK, across Europe and worldwide from patent offices — including the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) — as well as national courts. With the exception of South Africa, where substantive examination of patent filings is not undertaken, patent offices and courts in multiple jurisdictions have refused Thaler’s patent applications on the basis that an AI system cannot qualify as an inventor under the applicable patent laws. This reflects a legal consensus that the named inventor on a patent must be a human being. In Switzerland, the patent application was rejected because Swiss patent law requires a ‘natural...

This Practice Note explores the position on costs following an application for an interim injunction, the courts’ usual approach, and when the court may depart from that stance. It also addresses how the court deals with recovery of costs on freezing injunction applications and the making of costs orders on anti-suit injunctions. Costs orders following applications for interim injunctions An applicant who secures an interim injunction might reasonably expect the court to direct the respondent to pay the application costs. However, in Desquenne et Giral v Richardson (1999), the Court of Appeal determined that where relief is granted (or agreed by consent) on the balance of convenience, costs will ordinarily be reserved until trial of the substantive issues. The reason is that, at the interim stage, there is no clear successful or unsuccessful party, so the general rule that the losing party pays the winner’s costs (CPR 44.2(2)) does not bite. In Digby v Melford Capital Partners (Holdings) LLP (2020), the Court of Appeal endorsed this...

This practice note explains the use of witness statements by witnesses of fact in the Scottish courts, with reference to the relevant rules, guidance and case law, and offers practical drafting points. It does not deal with expert witnesses, precognition of witnesses, affidavit formalities, intimation and lodging of lists of witnesses, taking of witness evidence at a commission, citation of witnesses for proof, oral examination and cross-examination of witnesses, assessment of witness evidence, vulnerable witnesses or witness expenses. For a style witness statement, see Precedent: Witness statement—Scottish civil proceedings. For guidance on: issues to consider before bringing a civil claim in a Scottish court and other aspects of starting and progressing a civil claim in Scotland, see: Scottish DR: prescription and limitation—overview, Scottish DR: starting a claim—overview and Scottish DR: case management and evidence—overview respectively, which link through to more detailed guidance other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection the equivalent in England and Wales, see Practice Notes: Planning,...