Published: 16th January 2025
Area: Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Welcome to the inaugural edition of ‘The Global Litigator’ – your guide to the ever-evolving landscape of cross-border disputes. As we set sail on this exciting global journey, it feels only fitting to begin at the home port – the English courts. The past year has been a whirlwind of transformative developments, and what better way to start than by reflecting on 2024’s most intriguing moments?

From pivotal rulings that redefined legal doctrines, to technological innovations reshaping dispute resolution, the world of international litigation has never been more dynamic.

To kick-start 2025, we delve into the highlights from the past year – where tradition meets modernity, and where the intellectual rigor of the law is matched by its sheer unpredictability.

To grant or not to grant (that anti-suit injunction)

In UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, the UK Supreme Court channelled its inner Shakespeare to tackle a timeless dilemma: can English courts grant anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) for foreign-seated arbitrations? The answer? A resounding yes!

The court confirmed that its power to grant ASIs isn’t limited to arbitrations seated in England. Instead, it extends to foreign-seated arbitrations through its equitable jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981. This reaffirmed the reasoning in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, where the court held that if an arbitration agreement is silent on applicable law—and the law governing the main contract differs from the seat’s law—the main contract’s law will generally govern the arbitration agreement. Think of it as the court saying: “We don’t need to host the party to keep gatecrashers out.”

This decision is a big win for international parties, showcasing English law’s rigor and reliability as a choice for governing arbitration agreements, regardless of the arbitration’s seat. However, for those tracking the Arbitration Bill 2024 currently wending its way through Parliament, there’s a plot twist: the bill proposes amendments that could overturn this position. Under the bill, in the absence of an express choice of governing law, the arbitration agreement will default to the law of the chosen seat—not the main contract’s law.

Key takeaway
  • Expressly specify the governing law of your arbitration agreement—especially if the law of the chosen seat and the main contract differ. Because in international disputes, clarity isn’t just helpful—it’s essential.

Alternative dispute resolution : from nudge to necessity

2024 marked a game-changing year for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in English courts. Thanks to the Civil Procedure Rules (CRP) amendments, effective from 1 October, judges now wield the power to order parties to engage in ADR, moving from polite encouragement to firm insistence.

This shift follows the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v MTBC [2023] EWCA Civ 141, which overturned the longstanding prohibition on compelling parties to attempt ADR. It’s part of a global trend towards mandatory ADR, aligning England with jurisdictions that are prioritising resolution over confrontation.

Notably, the new rules are intentionally broad about what qualifies as ADR, allowing courts to tailor solutions to individual cases. Think of it as being told to ‘eat healthier’ without being handed a rigid menu—freedom with a purpose.

In Elphicke v Times Media [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB), the High Court extended ADR’s reach to costs proceedings. Before a detailed costs assessment could take place, the court required the parties to mediate to try to reach agreement. Referencing Churchill, the court signalled that this should become standard practice in costs disputes, embedding ADR deeper into the fabric of litigation.

Key takeaway
  • Be proactive: consider ADR early to avoid costs and court complications.

Crypto chronicles: the year digital assets stole the spotlight

2024 was a landmark year for cryptocurrency-related disputes, with the English courts taking bold steps to bring digital assets into the legal mainstream.

Take D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch): the High Court officially recognised Tether (USDT)—a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar—as legal property. Why does this matter?

  • First full trial decision. While previous reports (Law Commission’s Digital Assets Final Report 2023 and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill) nudged the debate forward, this was the first full trial to categorically define crypto assets as legal property.
  • Superpowered assets. USDT was classified as a unique kind of property—not a ‘chose in action’ or ‘chose in possession.’ Instead, it was deemed a ‘persistent’ asset that retains its identity even when mixed (think wallets, not piggy banks). These attributes pave the way for applying traditional remedies like tracing and constructive trusts to crypto. But remember, these powers vary by asset type—crypto isn’t one-size-fits-all.
  • Legal evolution. This decision marks a significant leap in integrating digital assets into traditional legal frameworks, creating opportunities for further advancements in remedies for crypto disputes.

And then there’s COPA v Dr. Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch) —a courtroom saga worthy of its own Netflix series. Dr. Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin, made headlines yet again. Despite a High Court injunction banning him from re-litigating his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (dismissed as false in March), Wright launched a £912 billion lawsuit against Bitcoin developers for intellectual property infringement.

The High Court, unimpressed, handed Wright a suspended prison sentence for his ‘flagrant’ defiance. Justice Mellor dismantled Wright’s convoluted arguments, calling his claim of ownership over Bitcoin goodwill ‘incoherent’ and legally ‘nonsensical’.

Key takeaway
  • Courts are effectively navigating the complexities of digital assets, reinforcing legal principles. If 2024 was any indication, crypto assets have firmly secured their seat at the legal table—and the courts are prepared to hold everyone accountable, even those who claim to have invented the table!

Ignorance isn’t always bliss: contract termination and awareness

In URE Energy v. Notting Hill Genesis [2024] EWHC 2537, the High Court tackled the intriguing interplay between knowledge and contract termination. The ruling? An energy supplier didn’t waive its right to terminate a supply contract, even after continuing performance for six months post-termination-triggering event. Why? Because the supplier was unaware of its right to terminate until just before issuing the notice.

This case underscores a key principle: you can’t waive what you don’t know. For a party to waive its right to terminate, it must be aware of both: the facts giving rise to the right, and the existence of the right itself.

But tread carefully—where legal advice has been sought, courts often presume knowledge of contractual rights. The specific facts of this case are unlikely to shield parties in situations where such awareness is harder to deny.

Key takeaways
  • Clarity at drafting. Anticipate potential termination scenarios when drafting. Precise wording can save significant headaches down the road.
  • Know before you go. Before sending that termination notice, ensure you’ve assessed your rights. Missteps can lead to a repudiatory breach, leaving you liable for damages.
  • Legal awareness is key. Ignorance might have saved URE Energy this time, but don’t rely on it—courts expect informed decision-making, especially where legal counsel is involved.

Shareholders in the spotlight: rights, wrongs, and rule rewrites

The shareholder rule – a turning point in privilege?

The longstanding principle that companies cannot assert privilege against their shareholders (except for documents prepared for litigation against them) took a seismic hit in Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore Plc and Ors [2024] EWHC 3046 (Comm). The High Court declared that the rule lacks proper justification under English law and should no longer apply. Companies can now assert privilege against shareholders in a broader range of circumstances.

This landmark ruling is poised to reshape shareholder claims and securities class actions. Yet, the debate is far from settled, with separate High Court judgments diverging and an appeal to the Privy Council expected next year. Until the dust settles, companies and litigants must tread carefully when handling sensitive, privileged advice that could become fair game in litigation.

Shareholder safeguards: a new horizon for minority rights

The Privy Council’s decision in Tianrui (International) Holding Company Ltd v China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd [2024] UKPC 36 introduced a potent safeguard for minority shareholders. The court affirmed that shareholders could 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.

While directors’ duties are owed to the company, the Privy Council held that breaches undermining the ‘corporate contract’ (the articles and memorandum) also infringe shareholders’ rights. Crucially, majority shareholders cannot ratify their own oppressive acts, safeguarding minority interests from such misconduct.

This decision clarifies an exception to the proper plaintiff rule in Foss v Harbottle and underscores the equitable limits on majority power. However, unresolved questions remain about defining improper purposes, handling mixed motivations, and applying remedies when shares land in bona fide third-party hands. These nuances may arise in future cases, but for now, the ruling strengthens minority shareholder protections against corporate abuse.

Key takeaway
  • Shifting shareholder landscape. Companies can now assert privilege against shareholders in more situations, while minority shareholders gain stronger protections against majority oppression. Clear governance remains crucial as the legal debate continues.

Anti-enforcement injunctions: breaking boundaries or setting trends?

In Google LLC v. Nao Tsargrad Media [2024] EWHC 2212 (Comm), the Commercial Court made waves by granting anti-enforcement injunctions (AEIs) to block the enforcement of Russian court orders stemming from proceedings that breached English arbitration and jurisdiction clauses. The standout feature? The applicant had not sought anti-suit injunctions before pursuing AEIs—a significant departure from conventional expectations.

While AEIs remain uncommon, their increasing use – especially in cases involving Russian sanctioned entities – signals a potential trend. English courts are showing a greater readiness to intervene when foreign judgments clash with English law obligations. This willingness, particularly evident in politically sensitive disputes, highlights the courts’ commitment to upholding contractual agreements and ensuring equitable outcomes in cross-border litigation.

Key takeaway:
  • Proactivity is key. AEIs can offer relief but come with challenges like res judicata and comity issues. To avoid complications, enforce arbitration and jurisdiction clauses early, preventing conflicting judgments and wasted resources.

No forced confessions: the court’s ruling on third-party disclosure

In Magomedov v. Kuzokov [2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm), the High Court made it clear: even in the world of high-stakes international litigation, some boundaries can’t be crossed. The case, involving a $14 billion claim for conspiracy and bribery, saw the claimant seeking a Norwich Pharmacal order to force a Liechtenstein entity to disclose sensitive information. The catch? That disclosure would violate local Liechtenstein laws.

Here’s what happened:
  • Respect for international comity: The court firmly upheld the principle of international comity, refusing to compel the Liechtenstein entity to break its local laws. In other words, the court showed deference to foreign legal systems, drawing a clear line between the enforcement of justice and the protection of national sovereignty.
  • A subtle balance: While the case didn’t make a sweeping statement about the obligations of foreign third parties, it serves as a reminder that global litigation often involves tricky negotiations between justice and respect for borders. Courts must walk a fine line when enforcing legal obligations across jurisdictions.
Key takeaway
  • Know your position. The decision reinforces that foreign third parties are protected from being forced to violate their own laws. 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!

What’s next?

Looking at 2025, key questions remain:

  • How will mandatory ADR frameworks develop?
  • What challenges will the courts face as digital assets become more integrated into legal systems?
  • How will courts balance international comity with disclosure needs and challenges to enforcement?
  • Will the Privy Council resolve the shareholder rule debate?

We’d love to hear from you. Which developments caught your attention? What trends will dominate 2025? Share your insights and stay tuned as we explore these issues and more in the months ahead.

Sneha Nainwal

Partner & Head of India Desk

Get in touch

Sneha Nainwal is a partner in our London office, specialising in cross-border dispute resolution. With experience in international litigation and arbitration, Sneha has successfully handled complex disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions, as well as the enforcement of awards and judgments across various legal systems. In addition to her practice, Sneha serves as the Chancellor of the Multilaw Academy, an annual intensive training program and Multilaw’s flagship initiative for international lawyers from member firms worldwide.

How we can help

International Arbitration

Our experienced litigation team has the know-how to guide you through any international arbitration process; helping you to resolve the dispute as quickly and efficiently as possible

Our latest International Litigation and Arbitration Solicitors updates

Our legal experts are here to answer any question you might have

If you’d like to speak to a member of our team, please fill out the form and we’ll be in touch within two hours.
If you know who you need to contact, you will find a full list of our people with email and telephone numbers here.
Call Us: 0330 024 0333