2024 in Focus: Key English Court Rulings Indian Litigators Should Watch

As cross-border dispute resolution continues to evolve, 2024 has proven to be a defining year in the English courts – setting trends, breaking conventions, and reinforcing principles critical to those navigating international litigation. For Indian practitioners and parties with UK-facing disputes – or those simply watching global legal trends – the developments below offer timely guidance on strategy, structure, and the shifting judicial mood in London.

We’ve provided a roundup of cases that every India-focused litigator or business should keep an eye on.

1. Anti-suit injunctions for foreign arbitrations

Case: In UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, the Supreme Court held that English courts can grant anti-suit injunctions (ASIs), even where the arbitration is seated outside England. The ruling reinforces the robust protections English law affords to arbitration agreements – even when not ‘home ground’.

Why it matters: Indian parties choosing English law to govern arbitration clauses can rely on English courts for support – even if the arbitration itself is seated in, for example, Singapore or Paris.

The upcoming Arbitration Bill 2024 may change this position by tying the applicable law to the seat, so now more than ever, be explicit when drafting arbitration clauses.

Our advice: Always specify the governing law of your arbitration agreement—especially when it differs from the law of the seat.

2. ADR becomes mandatory – the court can now make you mediate

Case: Following Churchill v MTBC [2023] EWCA Civ 141 and CPR Amendments (effective Oct 2024), the English courts now have express authority to compel alternative dispute resolution (ADR), reflecting a global move away from litigation-first approaches.

As a result, in Elphicke v Times Media [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB), the High Court paused a detailed costs assessment to require the parties to mediate first.

Why it matters: For Indian parties involved in litigation in the UK, ADR isn’t just a suggestion, it could be a procedural requirement.

Our advice: Factor ADR into your early dispute strategy and avoid surprises. Refusing mediation may soon carry cost consequences.

3. Crypto and digital assets: English courts get serious

Case: In D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch), the High Court officially recognised Tether (USDT) as legal property – not just code or speculative value. The court also allowed traditional remedies (like tracing) to be applied to such assets.

Case: In COPA v Dr. Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), in a dramatic IP case involving a self-proclaimed Bitcoin founder, the court not only dismissed the claim but also issued a suspended prison sentence for defying orders.

Why it matters: As India gears up with its own digital asset regulations, English jurisprudence provides a playbook for recognising and enforcing rights in crypto-assets – relevant to tech disputes, fraud, and enforcement.

Our advice: Crypto litigation is maturing, whether dealing with fraud, tracing assets, or protecting IP, English courts offer an increasingly well-defined route.

4. Contract termination: ignorance isn’t (always) a waiver

Case: In URE Energy v. Notting Hill Genesis [2024] EWHC 2537, continuing performance didn’t amount to waiver because the party wasn’t aware of its termination rights until later.

Why it matters: UK contract law can still protect parties who didn’t act on a breach immediately (if they were genuinely unaware).

Our advice: In cross-border commercial deals, don’t assume you’ve lost the right to terminate just because time has passed. But tread carefully; where legal advice has been sought, courts often presume knowledge of contractual rights.

5. Shareholder rights: privilege and protection evolve

Case: In Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore Plc and Ors [2024] EWHC 3046 (Comm), the court dismantled the old rule that shareholders could always access company privileged documents (except for documents prepared for litigation against them). Companies can now assert legal privilege more broadly—even against shareholders.

Case: In Tianrui (International) Holding Company Ltd v China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd [2024] UKPC 36, we saw a win for minority shareholders—who are now potentially entitled to bring personal claims when directors act for improper purposes, such as colluding with majority shareholders to dilute minority stakes by allocating shares to connected outsiders. Crucially, majority shareholders cannot ratify their own oppressive acts, safeguarding minority interests from such misconduct.

Why it matters: As Indian investors and promoters continue to explore overseas corporate structures and JV models, these decisions are critical in structuring shareholder protections and understanding document access rights.

Our advice: Governance clarity is key.

6. Anti-enforcement injunctions – the next frontier

Case: In Google LLC v. Nao Tsargrad Media [2024] EWHC 2212 (Comm), the English court granted an anti-enforcement injunction (AEI) to block the enforcement of Russian court orders stemming from proceedings that breached English arbitration and jurisdiction clauses. Notably, the AEI was granted, even though no anti-suit injunction had been sought first – a significant departure from conventional expectations.

Why it matters: English courts can step up to resist enforcement of foreign judgments that breach English jurisdiction or arbitration clauses.

India Desk Tip: Don’t delay in asserting jurisdiction clauses. However, if a foreign court proceeds anyway, AEIs may offer another layer of protection.

7. Norwich pharmacal orders and foreign law limits

Case: In Magomedov v. Kuzokov [2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm), a UK claimant sought disclosure from a Liechtenstein company. However, the court refused, as it would require breaching Liechtenstein law.

Why it matters: In cross-border fraud and asset recovery, UK courts won’t compel third parties to break their own country’s laws – even if the information is critical. But don’t get too comfortable. If you’re already part of the litigation, don’t expect the same leniency. When you’re in the arena, the rules might be different!

Our advice: Plan discovery strategies carefully in cross-border matters. Courts respect comity, and so must your litigation planning.

What might 2025 look like?

2024 has been a year of sharp, strategic shifts in English litigation. For Indian stakeholders – whether litigants, legal counsel, or in-house teams – these rulings signal the importance of precision in contracts, proactivity in dispute management, and foresight in handling cross-border legal complexity.

As we look ahead to 2025, the trajectory is clear: English courts are set to remain at the forefront of responding to global developments – an evolving landscape that Indian litigators may find increasingly relevant to monitor.

To discuss any of the issues highlighted here, or how they might apply to your business or dispute, reach out to a member of our India Desk.