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 MOREPartner Simon Fawell comments in CDR News in relation to the England and Wales Commercial Court pilot practice direction which, from 1 October 2025, will grant wider access to court documents. Simon’s comments were published in CDR News, 16 September 2025, here.
Speaking to CDR News, Simon noted that the pilot is not introducing a fundamental change: “The Civil Procedural Rules already provide that documents referred to or read out in open court becomes public, so parties could provide them to journalists. The UK Supreme Court also confirmed in Cape v Dring that the Court has the power to grant third parties such as journalists access to documents placed before the court and referred to during a hearing. So the pilot does not necessarily change the scope of documentation in theory being available but it does affect timing and ease of access.”
Simon also pointed out that not all documents in all cases will be made available to the public – intestead a proportionate approach will be taken, aligning with relevant case law: “In Cape v Dring, the Supreme Court sent back to the High Court the question of which documents (in addition to statements of case, written arguments, witness statements and expert reports) should be provided in the interests of open justice. The High Court’s decision was clear: you do not necessarily need all the documents in the hearing bundle to understand the case and the principle of open justice does not mean every shred of information in the hearing bundle will be made available to the public. That would go beyond the principle”.
Simon conluded: “Consider carefully the prospect of witness statements, expert reports and skeletons being made public, particularly where there are issues of confidential or sensitive information that a party may not want in the public domain. Parties should consider what information to include in potentially public documents and, where there is a need to include sensitive information, consider at an early stage whether to seek an FMO under the pilot”.
