Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Cosette Wootton
Applications determined in the NOx emissions group litigation (Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others)
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Managing Judges of the large GLO NOx emissions litigation have dismissed applications seeking the protection of documents used in open Court from use for collateral purposes and for information about the funding arrangements which the Claimants have in place in contemplation of a security for costs application. Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG and others [2024] EWHC 695 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case?
Former administrators have standing to apply for additional remuneration but application dismissed (Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others)
Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by the former administrators of a company for an increase in their remuneration has been dismissed, despite the Court concluding that they had standing to bring the application itself. Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case?
A limitation period applies to unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (THG Plc and others v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited)
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected 40 years of “received wisdom” among company law practitioners and has held that a limitation period of either twelve or six years (depending upon the relief sought) applies in respect of petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. THG Plc and others v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 158 What are the practical implications of this case?
Cost liability determined following partially successful application for a final third party debt order (Chedington Events Ltd v Brake and others)
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Defendants and Third Party who collectively advanced an untrue narrative in opposing a third party debt order were held jointly and severally liable to pay the Claimant’s costs. The fixed costs provisions in CPR Part 45 were disapplied in light of that concerted opposition. Chedington Events Ltd v Brake and others [2024] EWHC 384 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case?
The iniquity ‘exception’ to Legal Professional Privilege (Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP)
Dispute Resolution analysis: All lawyers know the principle and no doubt regularly rely on legal professional privilege (“LLP”) being a corner stone of the English legal system. However, LLP is not apposite to protect against participation (active or passive) in the commission of fraud.
Invitation to treat? Supreme Court clarifies the professional practice test
In McCulloch and others (Appellants) v Forth Valley Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) [2023] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court considered which legal test should be applied to the assessment of whether an alternative treatment was reasonable and should be discussed with a patient. The legal test for establishing negligence by a doctor in diagnosis or treatment is whether the doctor has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
Default judgment granted in part in long-running hacking and fraud claim (Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima and others)
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has granted default judgment on part of a counterclaim against the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority in a long-running set of proceedings, following the decision by the Investment Authority to take no further part in the proceedings. However, following submissions made by Additional Defendants in the proceedings, another part of the counterclaim will proceed to trial in 2024.
Expert evidence and fine margins in boundary disputes - Goodmans Autos Limited v Maverstone Properties Limited [2023] EWHC 1882 (KB)
Goodmans concerned an appeal brought by Goodmans Autos Limited (“GAL”) on the basis that the judge at first instance was wrong to dismiss its claim against Maverstone Properties Limited (“MPL”) and Byoot Develop Limited (“BDL”) for: Damages for trespass to its premises by excavating approximately 6 inches of the GAL Site and removing concrete fence posts on the land and; For an injunction requiring the Defendants to remedy the trespass to its premises caused by concrete poured for the...
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Cosette
Contact Cosette, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack