9 June 2016
Is a freezing order affecting third parties contrary to public policy?
The Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ), on referral from a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Latvia, has held that the public policy defence in Article 34 of the 2001 Brussels Regulation (the 2001 Brussels Regulation) did not prevent the enforcement of a freezing order made without a prior hearing of third parties whose rights might be affected, provided that the third parties had the right to apply to the original court to vary or discharge the order. Meroni v Recoletos Ltd and others (Case C-559/14)
8 April 2016
Submitting to the Jurisdiction of the English court
If you are a defendant to proceedings and wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court but you also need to take steps in the proceedings, how can you do so without losing your right to challenge jurisdiction? This issue was examined in the case of Peretz Winkler and another v Angela Shamoon and others [2016] EWHC 217 (Ch) (15 February 2016) (Bailii).
5 August 2014
Legal update: Businessman granted leave to serve injunction proceedings on Google out of the jurisdiction
Last Thursday, in the case of Hegglin v Google Inc. & ORS (2014) QBD, the High Court granted a businessman leave to serve proceedings under the Data Protection Act 1998 out of the jurisdiction on Google, seeking injunctive relief in respect of defamatory comments posted on websites by an anonymous individual.
1 August 2014
Illegal search and seizure outside the US? A customer’s emails stored in Ireland must be disclosed to US government investigators
A New York Court has held that Microsoft Corp must disclose to investigators the content of an unidentified customer’s MSN.com web based email account stored in a data center in Ireland that it controls and maintains to the US government in the context of an investigation. As the US District Judge upheld the Federal Magistrate’s decision, Microsoft, which argued that this was an illegal search and seizure of customer information held outside the US, lost its challenge to the US government search warrant. Microsoft has already indicated its intention to appeal.
2 December 2013
High Court awards costs on indemnity basis for “hopeless” summary judgment application
In the case of Simmons & Simmons LLP v Charles Hickox [2013] EWHC 2141 (QB), the High Court has held that a defendant who applies for summary judgment on a point of law which he knows, or ought to have known, was not justified should pay the costs of the application on the indemnity basis.