Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Is UK litigation becoming more antagonistic?

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 367
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Whilst Covid-19 may have forced many parts of society to slow down and re-think our approach to all aspects of our lives, recent comments by a number of High Court judges would seem to indicate that this is certainly not happening in civil and commercial litigation. The 3 judges have expressed their disquiet over the ever increasing pervasiveness of hostile and antagonistic approaches to litigation where every point, good or bad, is taken.

In the case of Navigator Equities Ltd & Ors v Deripaska from July this year, Mr Justice Andrew Baker said that, in the 30 years in which he had worked in commercial dispute resolution:

There has been a significant general increase in hostility and aggressiveness in the conduct of disputes…the taking of any and every point, good or bad, and other failures to display proper independence from the litigating client is treated too often as if it were a normal or appropriate adjunct of well-funded, hard fought, business disputes, particularly if there are issues of dishonesty involved.”

Justice Baker’s comments were also cited recently by Master Davidson for having a “certain resonance” in Vale SA v BSG Resources Ltd & Anor. In this case, the hearing was an application to set aside an order that Dag Lars Cramer, the director of a company which was a judgment debtor, should attend court to provide information that would enable the judgment creditor to enforce the debt. Commenting on the case, Master Davidson said that spending £254,000 on the application was “inappropriate and disproportionate both in amount and object” and added:

The points taken on Mr Cramer’s behalf were not a mixture of good and bad; they were all bad. Further, the language of the correspondence and submissions was inappropriate to Mr Cramer’s situation…he is an officer of a company which owes the claimant a sum in excess of US$2 billion, none of which has been paid. He has been made the subject of a routine procedure which the claimant was entitled to follow and to which he could not reasonably object…Some recognition of that would have been preferable to the tones of outrage and indignation which were employed.”

Master Davidson added: 

“Whilst in form offering cooperation, the substance and reality of Mr Cramer’s approach has been quite the opposite. Where the precise responsibility for these matters lies is not something that I can or need determine…All I will say is that parties to litigation and their professional advisers are not bound to take bad or hopeless points; they are not bound to adopt a needlessly antagonistic stance to their opponents, and both things are likely in the end to operate directly contrary to their interests.” 

In a third case, published last week but from a ruling from April this year, Chief Master Marsh highlighted elements of the Astra Asset Management UK Ltd & Anor v MUSST Investments LLB & Ors. In discussing disclosure applications, he said:

They are an example of parties to business litigation… pursuing their respective claims and defending those brought against them with great vigour and at great cost…Up to a point it is open to parties to conduct litigation in that way, but it is not trite in the context of this claim to remind the parties that the court is required to manage the litigation in accordance with the overriding objective and that, as a consequence, the court must have regard to the need to manage litigation justly and at proportionate cost.” 

Commercial Litigation Funding

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • In a further sign of the burgeoning litigation and dispute resolution market in the UK, a London based litigation funding provider is making available funding in excess £585m to tackle high-value civil litigation claims in the UK courts. Read More

  • New research published recently by insurance broker and risk managers Gallagher suggests that incidents of legal threats, claims and formal complaints against UK companies is likely to continue to increase over the next few years. With the volume of such actions having over doubled since 2018 and having increased by an incredible 300% since 2016, it is vital that UK businesses take positive steps to mitigate against such eventualities. The Gallagher data, based on surveying more than 3,000 UK businesses across multiple sectors, found that in the past five years, over half (56%) of all businesses have faced an accusation, claim or allegation of unlawful behaviour. Sectors facing the most litigation include IT (72%) and construction (60%), and amongst these the proportion is even higher.Employees make up the bulk of the accusations (44%), followed by customers (23%), clients (22%) and suppliers... Read More

  • Following the collapse of construction giant Carillion in Jan 2018, litigation funding has recently been confirmed allowing the defunct business to pursue legal action against accountants KPMG. The funding has been agreed by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), who have agreed to fund the £250m claim being made by Carillion’s liquidator in the Commercial Court. It what is widely regarded as the largest ever corporate failure in the UK’s construction sector, Carillion collapsed in January 2018 with reported liabilities of around £7bn. Before their collapse, Carillion formed part of a consortium that held contracts to build part of the forthcoming HS2 high speed railway line, it maintained 50,000 homes for the Ministry of Defence and managed schools, highways and prisons. On 10 July 2017, Carillion announced that its profits would be hit to the tune of £845m and, as a consequence, its chief... Read More