Litigation Law Updates

Find out all about our firm’s latest Litigation Law Updates below. To learn more about any individual item, please contact us here.

25 Aug 2015

Pathological arbitration clause

Robotunits Pty Ltd v Juergen Karl Mennel (2015) VSC 268 is a case from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning disputes arising from shareholders agreements.

18 Aug 2015

Judicial review on the decision of the Medical Council refusing to disclose identity of members sitting at disciplinary inquiry, legal adviser and defence counsel

The disciplinary inquiry in question was held in relation to a medical practitioner (“W”) in public. The initial sentence for a warning letter to be served on W was substituted by an order that W’s name be removed from the General Register for a period of 1 month after the Council was alerted by the media that W did not have a clear record. In the written decision given by the Council on the same day, the Council stated that they would expect legal representatives of a defendant to be frank with the Council in respect of the defendant’s disciplinary record in the future.

28 Jul 2015

The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance, Cap.623


The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance, Cap. 623 (hereinafter, “the Ordinance”) is expected to come into force on 1st January 2016.

There are two aspects to the doctrine of privity of contract, and it is the second aspect (that is, a party who is not a party to the contract cannot acquire and enforce rights under the contract) that the Ordinance seeks to address.

15 Jul 2015

Impact of Citic Pacific Limited v Secretary for Justice


The Court of Appeal in Citic Pacific Limited v Secretary for Justice (2015 HKEC 1263) disagreed with the narrow approach in Three Rivers (No.5) to the definition of “client”. In the context of corporations where the information may be acquired from employees in different departments or at various levels of the corporate structure, the court considered that the process of gathering information for the purpose of obtaining legal advice needs to be protected. The Court of Appeal also held that the “client” is simply the corporation, and the question is “which of its employees should be regarded as being authorized to act for it in the process of obtaining legal advice.”

28 Jun 2015

Record Fine was imposed for the Abuse of Market Dominance

On 10 February, 2015, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) announced a record fine of 6.088 billion yuan on Qualcomm for its alleged abuse of its dominant position on several specific markets in violation of the Anti-monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Anti-Monopoly Law”).

NEWER OLDER 1 2 8 9 10