A recent case about invasive Japanese knotweed has changed the way in which alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is handled. Following the case, relevant parts of the law that previous only allowed courts to encourage ADR have been formally amended, and from October 2024 judges will be able to stop court proceedings and compel parties to engage in ADR.

We were instructed to assist an engineering design company (“the client”) in recovering unpaid invoices (with a value of £300,000+) (“the invoices”) from a manufacturer (“the debtor”).

In an ongoing unfair prejudice petition presented in the High Court, at extremely short notice we were instructed to prepare an Amended Points of Defence and Counterclaim together with a Witness Statement in support of the client’s application to amend his Points of Defence, less than a week before a hearing was listed to hear the application of the same.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a very important way of trying to achieve settlement of disputes. Parties in dispute can step away from the red mist of preparing for trial to try to reach a sensible commercial compromise.

We continue to represent a leading manufacturer of measurement instruments in a long-running dispute concerning claims in relation to its proprietary software.

It would be fair to say that, in a dispute between a farmer and a utility company, the latter is likely to have the upper financial hand and thus pursue a settlement that accords with their own version of events. However, this supposition was overturned in a recent case where a judge found for the farmer who had claimed for damage done to a field that prevented a potato crop from being planted.

The tragic death of Argentinian footballer Emiliano Sala as he flew to meet up with his new club Cardiff City from Nantes on January 21 has shaken the world of football.

The period following the death of a family member is understandably emotional and tensions can be stoked by perceptions of unfair treatment even when the instructions set out in a will are being followed to the letter.

We are acting for a major business software reseller in a substantial dispute with a blue chip former customer relating to subsistence and infringement of intellectual property rights in a legacy database and system.

Barry Cosmetics sought to enforce through the courts an adjudicator’s decision in their favour. Barry was the employer and Merit the building contractor.