Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
NEWS
High Court of England and Wales upholds LCIA award declining jurisdiction; fraudulently backdated LTI not binding; s67 application over USD 1.3 million bonus dismissed
Zalina Kanametova v OSG Records Management [Europe] Limited [2026] EWHC 1196 (Comm) Incentive agreement Judge Neil Cadwallader of the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division, within the High Court of England and Wales, held that the LCIA arbitrator’s decision was rightly issued on evidence showing the long-term incentive agreement (LTI) said to guarantee a bonus to claimant Zalina Kanametova was not binding because it had been ‘fraudulently backdated’. As a result, the LCIA arbitrator properly determined there was no jurisdiction over Kanametova’s claim for a USD 1.3 million bonus against the respondent, Cyprus-based OSG Records Management (Europe) Ltd. (referred to as OSG). Kanametova served as general director of OSG’s subsidiary, OSG Records Management Centre LLC (referred to as OSG Russia), from 2011–18. She contended that in 2015 she executed the LTI, which included an arbitration clause, and that it was also signed by Krzysztof...
NEWS
PI and Clinical Negligence update: stroke causation; MCA best interests; work equipment direct effect; FAA services dependency and deputyship fees; strict CPR email service; DCP PD195 expansion-England and Wales.
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights-28 May 2026 In this issue: Clinical negligence Employer’s liability Claims involving a fatality Issues with service Other PI & Clinical Negligence News LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Clinical negligence County Court allows clinical negligence claim for delayed stroke diagnosis In Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] Lexis Citation 1552, the County Court entered judgment for the claimant in a clinical negligence action centred on stroke causation. The defendant accepted a breach of duty for not arranging 24‑hour electrocardiogram monitoring after the 15 January 2016 consultation, but maintained that this omission did not cause the claimant’s stroke on 21 July 2016. The court determined the claimant experienced paroxysmal atrial...
NEWS
195th PD Update: DCP to accept digital issuing of ‘Other Remedy’ claims (injunctions, declarations, rescission) and CCA 2006 unfair-relationship claims (England and Wales)
The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction (PD) Update, expanding the reach of the Damages Claim Portal (DCP) in CPR PD 51ZB so that specified non-monetary claims-termed ‘Other Remedy Claims’-can be lodged online alongside a principal damages claim, provided both sides have legal representation, rather than relying on paper filing. It further includes within scope disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, extending the update’s application. This reform shifts matters presently dealt with on paper into a digital workflow to enhance efficiency, aligning connected remedies with the same online route as the main damages claim. The amendments take effect on 27 May 2026. The additional category spans three remedies: injunctions, declarations and rescission. Sources: The 195th Practice Direction Update 195th UPDATE – PRACTICE DIRECTION...
NEWS
PI and Clinical Negligence Weekly Update: UKSC Lost Years for Children; DHSC Costs Plan; COVID‑19 Vaccine Scheme Reform; Domestic Abuse Damages; Fundamental Dishonesty; Practitioner Resources
In this edition: Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Costs Damages Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty LexisNexis® PI & Clinical Negligence Quantum Database LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Coronavirus (COVID-19) jab injury claimants seek compensation reforms: Law360 reports that, on 9 April 2026, a group suing AstraZeneca over deaths and injuries allegedly arising from vaccine side effects voiced hopes that the pandemic inquiry will advise changes to the country’s vaccine compensation scheme. See News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19) jab injury claimants seek compensation reforms. Lost years claims following CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals [2026] UKSC 5: John‑Paul Swoboda KC, Deputy Head of 12KWB, evaluates the landscape after the Supreme Court’s ruling in CCC v...
Cross-border service and applications for permission—overview
Overview
When addressing cross-border service, a central question is whether permission of the court is required to serve a claim form outside England and Wales. This overview outlines the reasons for making such an application and the various elements a claimant must establish. It also considers challenging an order where permission has been granted. For guidance on other issues that may emerge when serving beyond the jurisdiction, see:
- Practice Note: Cross-border service-a guide for dispute resolution practitioners
- Cross-border service principles-overview
- Cross-border service and issues with service-overview
Service of court documents is just one of several factors arising in a cross-border dispute. For other matters, see: Cross-border considerations-checklist.
Is the court’s permission required?
A claim form may only be served abroad if the English courts have jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. Permission is not necessary where particular criteria are satisfied, for example where there is a jurisdiction agreement naming the English courts. For further insight, see Practice Note: Cross-border service-is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales? In all other...
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.
View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Mitigation applies to all damages claims The notion that a claimant should mitigate their loss applies to every civil claim for damages, whether brought in contract, tort, or other recognised circumstances, although much of the case law on mitigation has arisen from contractual disputes. Consequently, even once causation and remoteness are established—subjects covered in practice notes on contractual breach, and on tort and negligence—the amount recoverable may still be affected if the claimant has not mitigated their loss. In essence, the innocent party cannot obtain damages for loss they could have avoided but did not, whether through unreasonable conduct or by failing to act. The key issue in mitigation is which steps it was reasonable, and which it was not, for the claimant to take. This is often referred to as the duty to mitigate or the rule on mitigation. What is the rule on mitigation? The rule on mitigation comprises three distinct components: The innocent party should take all reasonable measures to lessen their loss...
Discover more from LexisNexis
