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 MORE
In light of the growing popularity of decentralised dispute resolution powered, assisted by blockchain technologies, Partner Kate Gee spoke with CDR News about the benefits of the more readily-accessible system, and concerns regarding its enforceability.
Kate commented: "In certain circumstances, and for the right parties, DDR can offer a lower-cost and quick route to a decision being made. This is reflected by DDR services being offered by an increasing number of platforms."
Kate further commented: "However, there remains uncertainty about the enforceability of, and the appeal process for, decisions obtained through DDR. While corresponding steps can be taken “on chain” to protect relevant assets (for example, freezing mechanisms or the requirement for parties to agree to an “on chain” enforcement mechanism), it is not yet clear whether a DDR decision would be recognised and enforced by court in this jurisdiction, or elsewhere."
