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 MOREGraham Huntley discusses the potential impact of damages-based agreements as we approach their roll out across all types of civil litigation. Dramatic shifts in the funding of litigation are due when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) comes into force in April next year.
Damages-based agreements (DBAs) are the Jackson equivalent of contingency fees and to date they are only permitted in employment matters. In April they become available in all types of civil litigation. It is open to question whether the latest recommendations of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) address the right issues with regards to DBAs.
The main policy consideration behind the extension was to compensate personal injury claimant lawyers for the loss of the recovery of CFA additional liabilities. A broader aim was to offer a wider choice of funding options to claimants.
The DBA regulations 2010 firmly established the principle of a maximum percentage of recovered damages that would be paid to a lawyer. The mandatory requirement in employment tribunal cases, that no more than 35 per cent may be recovered (non-compliance with which would render the DBA unenforceable) seems not to have troubled anyone in theory.
The full article is available here.
