Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREAuthor: Ben Rigby
Graham Huntley of Signature Litigation – who is a past president of the LSLA – offers a note of caution for commercial litigators.
He tells CDR: “Like so much reform, Mitchell did not evolve out of the heavy and complex commercial litigation arena, and it was not aimed at solving any problems in that space.”
To that extent, Huntley says “complex commercial litigation cannot be fitted into a one-size shoe, designed to handle all civil litigation.” For that reason alone, he adds, “commercial litigators will tend to support the mildly dissenting comment of Lord Justice Jackson himself.”
That dissent stated that Rule 3.9 in its current form was designed to ensure that when deciding whether to grant relief from sanctions the court should place more weight on all the circumstances and in achieving justice overall.
Huntley says: “The prominence of the wider ‘circumstances’ is precisely what is needed to enable judicial subjectivity to be brought to bear on the particular features of problems that arise in complex commercial disputes.”
He adds: “That said, one can sympathise with the acknowledgment in the judgment that there is always the problem of lack of resources – and many judges will be concerned whether they and the system will have the time available promptly to deal with applications for relief, which require delving into the particular circumstances of each case.”
Potential costs sanctions penalising satellite litigation would, however, remain a live issue. “It is just a question of time before we see high-profile examples to remind the profession not to waste judicial and court time,” cautions Huntley.
Read the full article here.
