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 Tom Snelling comments on today's High Court ruling in Lawrence and others -v- Associated Newspapers Limited, which ordered the Claimants, including Prince Harry and Elton John, make an interim costs payment on an indemnity basis of £9.5m to the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Tom Snelling commented:
"Some might consider it injudicious to accuse a High Court judge of a "complete and obvious whitewash" before he rules on whether your conduct has been out of the norm such that costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis."
"Corporate Defendants will note that today's judgment has reaffirmed the important principle that, irrespective of how big a case is or how famous the Claimants are, serious allegations, especially allegations of dishonesty, fraud, bad faith or commercially unacceptable conduct, must be advanced and maintained with particular care."
"The Judge today made clear that there was "conduct which took the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of civil proceedings" and that's enough to justify ordering costs on an indemnity basis. He also said that "An inferential case may properly be advanced where the evidence supports it. But an inferential case must be tested against the evidence as it emerges". Rightly, this requires a Claimant to take a critical and realistic view of each allegation made. They must take reasonable steps to narrow, withdraw or abandon allegations as the case developed."
"The judgment affirms that in any type of case, an indemnity costs order is not a “blank cheque”, but doubts as to reasonableness will be resolved in favour of the winning party."
A link to today's ruling can be found here. Tom Snelling's comments were published in The Times, 21 August 2026, here, and the i Paper, 21 August 2026, here.
