Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 895 October 2021

Costs
Emphasising that a signature on a bill of costs is not an empty formality, the High Court has ordered a bill to be refiled with a freshly signed certificate where it was not possible to identify the signatory from the original signature.
Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust v AKC

Covid-19
The High Court has rejected arguments that the tenants of two central London cinema premises were not liable for rent arrears which had arisen when the cinemas could not be used during the Covid-19 pandemic, whether on the basis of an implied term or because of a failure of basis.
London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Limited & Ors

Disclosure
Demonstrating that pre-action disclosure orders will be outside the normal run of things, particularly where a request for disclosure is too wide-ranging, the High Court has considered the impact of the Disclosure Pilot in the Business and Property Courts, noting that while no regard should be had to the pilot when considering whether there is jurisdiction to make an order, it may be a relevant consideration at the discretionary stage.
Willow Sports Limited v SportsLocker24.com Limited & Anr

Interim payments
The Court of Appeal has made clear that in a claim against multiple defendants, an order for interim payment may be made where the court is satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum against the defendant against whom the order is sought, or the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial sum against at least one defendant, but the court cannot determine which, and the defendant is insured in respect of all of the claims.
Buttar Construction Limited v Arshdeep

Maritime
In a useful decision which promotes certainty, the Commercial Court has confirmed that the relevant time zone for determining the date of completion of discharge for the purposes of a demurrage time bar provision is normally the local time zone at the place of discharge, and not the time zone where either the recipient of the notice of claim, or the giver of the notice, is based.
Euronav NV v Repsol Trading SA (mt “MARIA”)

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: