Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 23818 March 2025

Jurisdiction
Over 800 supporters of Liverpool Football Club brought claims for damages in respect of injuries they allegedly sustained on 28 May 2022 at the UEFA Champions League final at the Stade de France in Paris. The injuries included those resulting from being crushed in the melee, sprayed with tear gas and pepper spray by the French police and assaulted by members of the French public. The claimants alleged that the defendants, UEFA, had organisational responsibilities for the match and so owed duties to keep the claimants safe. UEFA challenged jurisdiction on the basis that it would involve the English court adjudicating on the lawfulness or validity of acts of a foreign state, namely France, that were performed within its own territory and that was impermissible under the common law Foreign Act of State Doctrine. The English court rejected UEFA’s challenge. There were several exceptions to the application of the doctrine including where the acts of state that the English courts would have to consider were ancillary or the court would not need to inquire into their legal effectiveness. The defendants had not established that the conduct of the relevant bodies would not fall within those exceptions.
Abram v UEFA and another [2025] EWHC 483 (KB), 7 March 2025

Insolvency
The dispute related to a bridging loan of £260,000 given by Seculink to Mr Forbes that was secured over various properties. Mr Forbes defaulted and Seculink commenced proceedings to recover the debt that had now risen significantly due to interest and other sums arising from the default. Mr Forbes initiated a mental health crisis moratorium which meant that enforcement of certain debts was barred during the moratorium period, as per the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. The court held that, whilst the interest and other sums due in addition to the principal sum did fall within the definition of “arrears” and so were debts to which the moratorium applied, the principal sum did not. Capitalised mortgage arrears were expressly excluded from the definition of arrears and this applied to the called-in principal sum, which was not a moratorium debt.
Seculink Ltd v Forbes [2025] EWHC 524 (Ch), 11 March 2025

Restitution
A boutique investment bank carried out certain early advisory and brokerage work in relation to a merger of two mining companies, Barrick and Randgold. There was a dispute as to what if any remuneration the bank was entitled to for the work they had done. The court held that no contract had been entered into, but that Randgold had been enriched by the work done by the bank, at the bank’s expense. The court acknowledged that investment banks often undertake work for free in the hope of being given a mandate to work on a transaction. However, the bank had a legitimate expectation of involvement in the transaction and therefore of retrospective remuneration and there was an unjust element when this basis of agreement failed. The bank was entitled to quantum meruit remuneration of US$2m.
H&P Advisory Ltd v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Ltd (formerly Randgold Resources Ltd) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch), 12 March 2025

Witness Statements
A businessman, Mr Russell, had been represented by Mr Coulter, a barrister, in a commercial dispute brought against him by a former business partner. Mr Russell was unsuccessful in that case and brought a claim for professional negligence against Mr Coulter. As part of the trial of the claim, the court struck out one of the witness statements put forward by Mr Russell. The statement of Mr Tilley was put forward as factual evidence as he had assisted Mr Russell in attempts to appeal the original judgment. The statement gave pure opinion evidence without Mr Russell having been given permission to put forward such expert evidence. The judge said that it was expert evidence by the back door, in contravention of part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and was plainly abusive. Further the statement trespassed on issues that it was for the judge to determine. The statement was struck out in its entirety. The claim against Mr Coulter was dismissed as he had not been in breach of duty.
Russell v Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB), 6 March 2025

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: