DOCSLIB.ORG

Private Client 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Private Client 2020 Private Client 2020 A practical cross-border insight into private client work 9th Edition Featuring contributions from: Aird & Berlis LLP Holland & Knight LLP Rovsing & Gammeljord Arcagna B.V. Jonathan Mok Legal in Association with Seward & Kissel LLP Arendt & Medernach Charles Russell Speechlys LLP Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) AZB & Partners Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Teresa Patrício & Associados – BDB Pitmans LLP Loconte & Partners Sociedade de Advogados SP, RL Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Macfarlanes LLP Tirard, Naudin, Société d’avocats Cases & Lacambra Matheson Triay & Triay Corrieri Cilia Miller Thomson LLP Utumi Advogados Dionysiou & Partners LLC Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Walder Wyss Ltd DQ Advocates Limited MWE China Law Offices Walkers Griffiths & Partners / Coriats Trust Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd. Withersworldwide Company Limited Ozog Tomczykowski WongPartnership LLP Higgs & Johnson P+P Pöllath + Partners Zepos & Yannopoulos ISBN 978-1-83918-021-7 ISSN 2048-6863 Published by 59 Tanner Street London SE1 3PL United Kingdom +44 207 367 0720 Private Client 2020 [email protected] www.iclg.com Ninth Edition Group Publisher Rory Smith Publisher Paul Regan Contributing editors: Senior Editors Suzie Levy Caroline Oakley Jonathan Conder & Robin Vos Rachel Williams Macfarlanes LLP Creative Director Fraser Allan Printed by Ashford Colour Press Ltd. Cover image iStockphoto ©2019-2020 Global Legal Group Limited. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction by any means, Strategic partners digital or analogue, in whole or in part, is strictly forbidden. Disclaimer This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehen- sive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations. Table of Contents Expert Chapters UK Residential Property – Essential Points to Consider for Global Investors 1 Jon Conder & Clare Wilson, Macfarlanes LLP More Winds of Change 6 Helen Ratcliffe & Lara Mardell, BDB Pitmans LLP Pre-Immigration Planning Considerations for the HNW Client – Think Before You Leap 12 Joshua S. Rubenstein, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP The American/British Overview of Pre-Nuptial Agreements 19 Elizabeth Hicks, Alexie Bonavia, Karin Barkhorn & Steven Dawson, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Navigating Complex US Immigration Laws: US Visas & Taxation 23 Mark E. Haranzo, Holland & Knight LLP & Reaz H. Jafri, Withersworldwide Challenges at Home and Abroad: Estate Planning for Blended Families in Canada 28 Rachel L. Blumenfeld & Marni Pernica, Aird & Berlis LLP STEP’s Policy Focus 33 Emily Deane, Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) Q&A Chapters Andorra Greece 39 Cases & Lacambra: Jose María Alfin, Marc Urgell & 126 Zepos & Yannopoulos: Costas Kallideris & Júlia Pons Anna Paraskeva Bahamas Guernsey 47 Higgs & Johnson: Heather L. Thompson & 132 Walkers: Rupert Morris, Rajah Abusrewil & Kamala M. Richardson Nitrisha Doorasamy Brazil Hong Kong 54 Utumi Advogados: Ana Claudia Akie Utumi 138 Jonathan Mok Legal in Association with Charles Russell Speechlys LLP: Jonathan Mok, Jessica British Virgin Islands Leung & King Tan 61 Walkers: David Pytches India Canada 145 AZB & Partners: Anand Shah & Khushboo Damakia 67 Miller Thomson LLP: Wendi P. Crowe, Dwight Dee, Nathalie Marchand & Rahul Sharma Ireland 154 Matheson: John Gill & Lydia McCormack Cayman Islands 76 Walkers: David Pytches Isle of Man 163 DQ Advocates Limited: Donna Matthews & China Tara Cubbon 82 MWE China Law Offices: Jacqueline Z. Cai & Robbie H. R. Chen Italy 170 Loconte & Partners: Stefano Loconte & Cyprus Angela Cordasco 88 Dionysiou & Partners LLC: Maria Rousia & Anastasios Tsanakas Japan 177 Mori Hamada & Matsumoto: Atsushi Oishi & Denmark Makoto Sakai 96 Rovsing & Gammeljord: Mette Sheraz Rovsing & Troels Rovsing Koch Jersey 184 Walkers: Robert Dobbyn & Sevyn Kalsi France 102 Tirard, Naudin, Société d’avocats: Maryse Naudin Liechtenstein 190 Ospelt & Partner Attorneys at Law Ltd.: Alexander Germany Ospelt & Sascha Brunner 112 P+P Pöllath + Partners: Dr. Andreas Richter & Dr. Katharina Hemmen Luxembourg 199 Arendt & Medernach: Eric Fort, Marianne Rau, Gibraltar Ellen Brullard & Elise Nakach 120 Triay & Triay: Charles Simpson Private Client 2020 Table of Contents Malta Spain 240 207 Corrieri Cilia: Dr. Silvio Cilia & Dr. Louella Grech Cases & Lacambra: Ernesto Lacambra & Cristina Villanova Netherlands 214 Arcagna B.V.: Nathalie Idsinga & Arnold van der Switzerland 247 Smeede Walder Wyss Ltd: Philippe Pulfer & Olivier Sigg Turks and Caicos Islands Poland 257 220 Ozog Tomczykowski: Paweł Tomczykowski & Griffiths & Partners / Coriats Trust Company Katarzyna Karpiuk Limited: David Stewart & Conrad Griffiths QC United Kingdom Portugal 262 226 Teresa Patrício & Associados – Sociedade de Macfarlanes LLP: Jon Conder & Robin Vos Advogados SP, RL: Teresa Patrício da Silva & Vicky Rodrigues USA 279 Seward & Kissel LLP: Scott M. Sambur & Singapore David E. Stutzman 234 WongPartnership LLP: Sim Bock Eng & Tan Shao Tong 184 Chapter 28 Jersey Jersey Robert Dobbyn Walkers Sevyn Kalsi 1 Connection Factors 1.6 If nationality is relevant, how is it defined for taxation purposes? 1.1 To what extent is domicile or habitual residence relevant in determining liability to taxation in your See the response to question 1.5 above – nationality is not jurisdiction? relevant. An individual’s liability to taxation will be determined by refer- 1.7 What other connecting factors (if any) are ence to such individual’s residence. relevant in determining a person’s liability to tax in your jurisdiction? 1.2 If domicile or habitual residence is relevant, how is it defined for taxation purposes? See the response to question 1.4 above with regard to main- taining a place of abode in Jersey. An individual who is both resident and ordinarily resident in Jersey will be subject to Jersey income tax on his or her worldwide 2 General Taxation Regime income, whereas an individual who is resident but not ordinarily resident in Jersey will only be taxed on his or her Jersey-source 2.1 What gift, estate or wealth taxes apply that are income and such overseas income as he or she remits to Jersey. relevant to persons becoming established in your jurisdiction? 1.3 To what extent is residence relevant in determining liability to taxation in your jurisdiction? Jersey does not have gift taxes, an inheritance tax regime, nor is there a wealth tax. Stamp duty is, however, charged on a deceased person’s See the response to question 1.2 above. movable estate on the following basis: ■ where the deceased was domiciled outside of Jersey, only 1.4 If residence is relevant, how is it defined for the deceased’s Jersey situs assets will be subject to stamp taxation purposes? duty; and ■ where the deceased was domiciled in Jersey, the whole of For taxation purposes, an individual will be considered to be the deceased’s estate will be subject to stamp duty. resident and ordinarily resident in Jersey in a tax year (with a tax Stamp duty in respect of a deceased individual’s movable estate year in Jersey being a calendar year) if such individual: is payable on a sliding scale, where the estate exceeds £10,000. ■ is present in Jersey for 183 days (in aggregate) in the tax The maximum stamp duty currently payable is £100,000. year in question; and either With regard to a deceased individual’s immovable estate, ■ maintains a place of abode in Jersey and stays (at least) one stamp duty will be payable on the registration of the deceased’s night in such place of abode in the tax year in question; or will of immovable property (with the value of the immovable ■ does not maintain a place of abode in Jersey but visits property to be ascertained by an estate agent). If, however, the Jersey on a habitual basis, i.e. spending, on average, more deceased’s property is left by will to his or her heirs at law, no than 90 nights per year in Jersey over a four-year period. valuation will be required (as no stamp duty will be payable) and Where such habitual visits are made, the individual will only an administration charge of £80 will be payable. become resident and ordinarily resident in Jersey from the start of the fifth year. 2.2 How and to what extent are persons who become established in your jurisdiction liable to income and capital gains tax? 1.5 To what extent is nationality relevant in determining liability to taxation in your jurisdiction? See the response to question 1.4 with regard to income tax. There is no capital gains tax in Jersey. An individual’s nationality is not relevant when determining his or her liability to taxation in Jersey. Private Client 2020 © Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London Walkers 185 2.3 What other direct taxes (if any) apply to persons 3.3 In your jurisdiction, can pre-entry planning be who become established in your jurisdiction? undertaken for any other taxes? There are none. No, it cannot. 2.4 What indirect taxes (sales taxes/VAT and customs 4 Taxation Issues on Inward Investment & excise duties) apply to persons becoming established in your jurisdiction? 4.1 What liabilities are there to tax on the acquisition, holding or disposal of, or receipt of income from Goods and Services Tax (GST) is charged at 5% on the majority investments in your jurisdiction? of goods (including imports) and services supplied in Jersey for local use. GST is also payable in respect of: As mentioned in the response to question 3.2 above, there are no ■ goods worth, in aggregate, £240 or more bought either capital taxes in Jersey. Income tax will, however, be payable on online or overseas and delivered to Jersey; and any income that is received by a Jersey tax payer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ELA Annual Report 2012-2013
    The Honourable Mr Justice Langsta President Employment Appeal Tribunal England & Wales David Latham President Employment Tribunals England & Wales Shona Simon President Employment Tribunals Scotland Lady Anne Smith (to March 2013) Chair Employment Appeal Tribunal Scotland Lady Valerie Stacey (from March 2013) Chair Employment Appeal Tribunal Scotland ELA Management Committee 2012 - 2014 Chair Richard Fox Deputy Chair Richard Linskell Treasurer Damian Phillips Secretary Fiona Bolton Editor, ELA Briefing Anna Henderson Chair, Training Committee Gareth Brahams Chair, Legislative & Policy Committee Bronwyn McKenna ELA Management Committee 2012 - 2014 Chair, International Committee Juliet Carp Chair, Pro Bono Committee Paul Daniels Representative of the Bar Paul Epstein QC In-house Representative Alison Leitch (to January 2013) Mark Hunt (from February 2013) Regional Representatives London & South East – Betsan Criddle and Eleena Misra Midlands – Ranjit Dhindsa North East – Anjali Sharma North West – Naeema Choudry Scotland – Joan Cradden South Wales – Nick Cooksey South West – Sean McHugh Members at Large Merrill April Stuart Brittenden Yvette Budé Karen Mortenson Catherine Taylor ELA Law Society Council Seat Tom Flanagan Life Vice Presidents Dame Janet Gaymer DBE QC Jane Mann Fraser Younson Vice President Joanne Owers ELA Support Head of Operations Lindsey Woods ELA Administration - Byword Sandra Harris Charley Masarati Emily Masarati Jeanette Masarati Claire Paley Finance Administrator Angela Gordon Website Manager Cynthia Clerk Website Support and Maintenance Ian Piper, Tellura Information Service Ltd Bronwen Reid, BR Enterprises Ltd PR Consultants Clare Turnbull, Kysen PR Chair Richard Fox, Kingsley Napley LLP Deputy Chair Richard Linskell, Ogletree Deakins This has been an extraordinary year for ELA and not just because 2013 marks our 20th Anniversary! Until relatively recently, there was a view that employment law had “plateaued”, and that the rate of change had started to mellow.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2010
    CROSS-BORDER DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THE PERSPECTIVE FOR RUSSIA AND THE CIS The Lotte Hotel, Moscow | 8 bld.2, Novinskiy Boulevard SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 Judicial Assistance and Enforcement Proceedings International Asset Recovery Business and Corporate Raiding Disputes Involving Russian State and State Entities Late-Breaking Developments CONFERENCE WITH SUPPORT OF: STRATEGIC PARTNER: SPONSORS CONFERENCE STRATEGIC PARTNER CONFERENCE PARTNERS LUNCHEON SPONSOR PRE-CONFERENCE SPEAKER DINNER SPONSOR CONFERENCE DELEGATE BAG SPONSOR THERMAL MUGS SPONSOR NETWORKING BREAK SPONSORS MEETING SUPPORTER COOPERATING ENTITIES Federal Chamber of Advocates COOPERATING ENTITIES Moscow City Chamber of Advocates MEDIA SPONSORS Cross-Border Dispute Resolution: The Perspective for Russia and the CIS PROGRAM AGENDA All events to be held at the Lotte Hotel, Moscow located at 8 bld.2, Novinskiy Boulevard, unless otherwise indicated. 7:30 AM Registration and Breakfast Maxim Kulkov, Goltsblat BLP, Moscow, Russia Charles D. Schmerler, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, New York, New York USA 8:30 AM Opening Session Moderator & Program Chair: Glenn P. Hendrix, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, Georgia USA Welcome: Glenn P. Hendrix, Immediate Past Chair, American Bar Association 10:30 AM Networking Break Section of International Law, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, Georgia USA 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Introductions: Show Me the Money: Recovering Assets Abroad Andrew Somers, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, Moscow, Russia "Winning" the case is great, but did you prepare upfront for the hard part -- actually collecting the money? While never easy against a recalcitrant Opening Remarks: debtor, recovery is especially difficult if the assets are tucked away The Honorable Aleksander Vladimirovich Konovalov, Minister of offshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Lex 100 P014-024 Winners.Qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14
    Lex 100 p014-024 Winners.qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14 Job satisfaction How would you rate your overall job satisfaction? Lex 100 winners 1 Farrer & Co 9.10 2 Harbottle & Lewis LLP 9.00 Analysis = McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP 9.00 This important category is topped this year by Farrer & Co in what’s = Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP 9.00 been a highly impressive overall performance – the firm appears in every single one of our Lex 100 5 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 8.75 Winners tables, often near the top, the first firm to do so. So why is this 6 Covington & Burling LLP 8.71 mid-sized London firm so popular with trainees? It certainly sounds a fun place 7 Latham & Watkins 8.67 to work and offers six seats in a wide variety of practice areas. There’s a strong 8 Ashfords 8.63 bond between current trainees, who praise the ‘great people and great mix of work’, ‘unique atmosphere’ and ‘sheer breadth of training = Stephens & Scown 8.63 opportunities’. Media boutique Harbottle & Lewis comes next. Trainees here feel they have ‘considerably 10 Bristows 8.60 better quality work than peers, better experience and more exposure’. Then, as last year, there’s a strong showing = Shoosmiths 8.60 by five US firms: McDermott Will & Emery, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb, Covington & 12 Browne Jacobson LLP 8.58 Burling and Latham & Watkins. These firms have not been offering training contracts for that long in London and all have 13 Birketts 8.50 limited intakes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Test of Remoteness. at First Sight Wellesley Partners LLP V Withers
    TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP – the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is “just another slightly dreary solicitors’ negligence case where attributing fault and assessing damages depended on a combination of close fact-specific analysis and a certain amount of educated guesswork”. The words are not mine, they are those of Professor Tettenborn. However, the learned Professor considers that the case gave rise to two interesting points of law, which it did. It is those I wish to look at briefly. As we all know in very many cases the live issues in professional negligence claims are as much involved with causation and damage as they are with breach of duty and this was a case which resolves important issues which have the potential to impact on a number of claims in the area. The facts of Wellesley can be set out very briefly. Wellesley was a successful firm of head-hunters or as they preferred “executive placement consultants”. It was based in London albeit that one of the founding partners had spun off a business in Hong Kong. In order to facilitate growth it wished to expand the membership of the LLP. One of the new members was to be a middle eastern based bank: ADDAX. The defendant solicitors were engaged to amend the LLP agreement but in doing so, as the trial judge 1 held, mis-drafted the same so that ADDAX could withdraw its money prematurely which, following the Lehman Brothers collapse, it duly did. One of the largest elements of alleged loss related to an allegation that the business had been deprived of the opportunity to open a New York office and to obtain a contract with Nomura which was reconstructing the Lehman Brother business of which it had purchased part.
    [Show full text]
  • Contentious Commentary
    Contentioius Commentary 1 Newsletter December 2015 Contentious Commentary Contract money, the obligation to pay the On the penalty spot specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being Contents The rule on penalty clauses is alive! a penalty; but if the contract does English contract law generally adopts The rule on penalty clauses is not impose (expressly or impliedly) a laissez faire approach – the parties restricted but left in place an obligation to perform the act, but can usually do what they want (at simply provides that, if one party Tolling agreement extends to least, unless consumers are involved). does not perform, he will pay the fraud despite lack of mention The rule on penalty clauses is one of other party a specified sum, the Waiver of immunity for assets the few common law rules that obligation to pay the specified sum allows an injunction controls what the parties can agree. is a conditional primary obligation Terms will rarely be implied It bans an agreement requiring a and cannot be a penalty." into contracts party in breach of contract to pay a Contractual remoteness sum out of all proportion to the losses The rule can therefore be evaded by applies to tort claim caused by the breach in order to deter appropriate drafting in some – breach. Because of the rule's perhaps many – cases (though the Securitisation vehicle can sue exceptional nature, it has always court will look to the substance rather valuers been controversial. than the form). Legal context is wide for privilege purposes In Cavendish Square Holding BV v When the rule applies, the test is no Potential waiver of privilege Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, the longer about reasonable pre- can be undone Supreme Court was offered the option estimates of damages or whether a of abolishing the rule altogether or, clause is a deterrent to breach.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Judgment Template
    Case No: A3 2014 1026 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION MR JUSTICE NUGEE [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11/11/2015 Before : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE FLOYD and MR JUSTICE ROTH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP Claimant - and - WITHERS LLP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Fiona Parkin QC and Mr Micha Balen (instructed by Enyo Law LLP) for the Claimant Mr Michael Pooles QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 30 June, 1 July 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Lord Justice Floyd: 1. We have before us appeals by both parties from the judgment of Nugee J dated 11 March 2014 in a professional negligence action, and from his consequent order. The appeals raise issues about the appropriate rule for remoteness of damage where a claimant has concurrent causes of action for pecuniary loss in tort and in contract, and about the application of the “loss of a chance” principle to the assessment of damages. 2. In the action, Wellesley Partners LLP (“WP”) claimed damages against Withers LLP (“Withers”) for negligence in the drafting of a partnership agreement for WP. The judge found in favour of WP and awarded damages of £1,612,313. On this appeal, as below, the case for WP was argued by Ms Fiona Parkin QC with Mr Micha Balen and the case for Withers by Mr Michael Pooles QC. The facts Background 3. The background to the action is set out in the lucid and comprehensive judgment of Nugee J: [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch).
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who Legal: Thought Leaders
    Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders - Global Elite 2020 Arbitration .................................................................................................................................... 4 Asset Recovery ............................................................................................................................ 5 Aviation - Contentious ................................................................................................................. 7 Aviation - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 7 Aviation - Regulatory ................................................................................................................... 8 Banking - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 9 Banking - Fintech ....................................................................................................................... 10 Banking - Regulatory ................................................................................................................. 10 Business Crime Defence - Corporates ...................................................................................... 11 Business Crime Defence - Individuals ....................................................................................... 12 Capital Markets - Debt and Equity ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jennifer Haywood Year of Call: 2001
    [email protected] +44 (0)20 7242 6105 Jennifer Haywood Year of Call: 2001 “Second to none: she combines high-level strategic advice and lateral thinking with an attention to detail and client service that has made her our go-to counsel this year.” Chambers and Partners [email protected] Practice Overview Jennifer Haywood has a broad commercial chancery practice encompassing litigation, drafting and advisory work across a wide range of traditional and commercial chancery, with a strong emphasis on breach of fiduciary duty, company, partnership, (both contentious and non-contentious) trusts and probate and fraud. Jennifer is particularly well regarded for her commercial outlook and client interaction. She is praised by The Legal 500 as being “exceptionally user-friendly, easy work with and a great team player” and Chambers and Partners says “she attracts particular praise for her excellent, candid and common sense-based client service.” She is ranked in Tier 1 for Partnership work. A CEDR accredited mediator, Jennifer has conducted more than 30 mediations, mostly in the areas of contested trusts and probate and Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 and partnership/LLP. Jennifer also acts as an arbitrator and is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Jennifer has been called to the BVI Bar and is a member of the BVI International Arbitration Centre Panel. Areas of Expertise Arbitration Jennifer has acted as an advocate in arbitrations, mostly concerning professional service firm disputes. She was www.serlecourt.co.uk recently instructed by Clifford Chance LLP on behalf of a European bank, and led by John Machell QC, in an LCIA arbitration against a private equity house.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2013
    Index January – December 2013 CONTENTS Subject Index 2 UK Statutes 26 Statutory Instruments 28 International Legislation 29 Law Reports 32 Table of Cases 34 Author Index 52 Book and Online Reviews 56 Glossary 56 2 SUBJECT INDEX www.newlawjournal.co.uk | January – December Index 2013 | New Law Journal Numbers in bold refer to issue use of ADR to resolve landlord and how courts deal with question of costs numbers, followed by page numbers tenant disputes (ADR) 7573:21 where an arbitration award is being CAS refers to the who pays the mediator (judicial line) 7557:19 challenged 7554:14–15 Charities Appeals Supplement America jurisdiction of High Court under American Bar Association and external Arbitration Act 1969 (law digest) 7565:29 ownership of law firms (comment) 7588:8 local court is free to impose its own A American Bar Association to permit procedural conditions (law digest) 7583:17 foreign lawyers to practise as in- negative aspect of a London arbitration abuse of process house counsel 7549:182 (law digest) 7565:29 former wife’s claim was abuse of process 7560:4 animals points needed to succeed under s.68 access to justice dangerous dogs and destruction orders Arbitration Act 1996 (law digest) 7581:29 access to justice debate (comment) 7543:7 (law digest) 7588:21 seat of arbitration sufficiently indicated age anti-social behaviour by the country chosen as the place former partner in law firm loses age proposals in new legislation to of arbitration (law digest) 7550:237 discrimination claim 7563:4 introduce statutory injunctions
    [Show full text]
  • June/July 2014 Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review
    June/July 2014 Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review EDITORIAL In a much anticipated judgment on the application of CPR r3.9 and relief from sanctions (Denton & ors v TH White Ltd), the Court of Appeal has set out guidance on the approach that should be taken when a party seeks relief from sanctions. Commenting on the controversial backdrop to this appeal, the Master of the Rolls noted "we think that the judgment in Mitchell has been misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts. It is clear that it needs to be clarified and amplified in certain respects", whilst Lord Justice Jackson observed "The new rule 3.9 is intended to introduce a culture of compliance … It is not intended to introduce a harsh regime of almost zero tolerance". As Jason Rix notes in his commentary on this appeal, notwithstanding the apparent rebalancing exercise by the Court of Appeal, the fact remains that compliance with court deadlines (eg the service of witness statements or filing Precedent H) is an area of increased scrutiny by the courts and thus a heightened risk area for litigators (see Procedure). In this edition we also cover two decisions of particular note for finance parties. First, we discuss a recent disclosure order made by the English court in Credit Suisse Trust & anr Sarah Garvey v Banca Monte Dei Pasche Di Siena where the court required two London branches of PSL Counsel Litigation – London Italian banks to provide information about a customer where the information (and the Contact relevant banking activity) was in Italy (see Disclosure).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    Investment Treaty Forum Annual Report 2020 A global centre for high level debate on International Investment Law www.biicl.org/itf Introduction from the ITF Director Dear colleagues, Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 has been a successful year for the Investment Treaty Forum (ITF). ITF grew its membership and launched several new projects with its members. It has quickly moved into the online-only format to address the most pressing issues of the day helping its members to stay informed and demonstrate their expertise on the most recent developments in international investment law. By the end of 2020, ITF had 28 corporate members and around the same number of individual members who include senior academics, government officials or practitioners in the area of international investment law. ITF has also opened free consultative membership to States and intergovernmental organisations. New consultative members include various governmental agencies of Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Latvia, Mexico, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey. In 2020, ITF organised three major online conferences: on state regulatory powers, arbitration in Africa and investor-state mediation. In addition, ITF hosted several smaller events covering UK investment protection post-Brexit with Steptoe & Johnson, responses to the pandemic, corporate restructuring and investment law with Baker McKenzie, intra-EU BITs and emissions trading with Three Crowns. The newly launched BIICL Blog features summaries of the most recent ITF events. In March, ITF launched, at Baker McKenzie’s London office, an empirical study on Corporate Restructuring and Investment Treaty Protections. We are currently working with Baker Botts, Withers, Dechert and Allen & Overy on new studies, which we hope to launch in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Familiarisation
    Witness Familiarisation The essential pre-hearing service for both Witnesses of Fact and Expert Witnesses who are about to give evidence. BOND SOLON Wilmington Legal What is witness familiarisation? What is the difference between ‘ ‘ Witness familiarisation is a process which witness familiarisation and provides witnesses with a comprehensive coaching? Witness Familiarisation is vital to understanding of the theory, practice and procedure of giving evidence and Coaching has always been prohibited. ensure witnesses know what to Lawyers are not allowed to prepare expect at a hearing so they can what is expected of them when they are required to give evidence. This includes witnesses on what they should say or ‘‘give their evidence effectively. familiarising the witness with the layout attempt to persuade the witness into of the legal forum, the likely sequence of changing their evidence. Ali Malek QC events when the witness will be giving In contrast witness familiarisation is Three Verulam Buildings evidence and a balanced appraisal of the encouraged by both the Bar Council and different responsibilities of the various the Court of Appeal. Witnesses should not people at the hearing. be disadvantaged by the ignorance of the process or taken by surprise at the way in which the hearing works. There is a duty to put witnesses at ease as much a possible ‘ ‘ Why should witness before their hearing. Bond Solon in just one session familiarisation be considered? transformed an over confident Giving evidence can be a daunting, and impatient CEO into a calm unfamiliar and uncomfortable experience Why shouldn’t solicitors ‘‘and thoughtful witness who for witnesses.
    [Show full text]