Joseph England

Featured in: Favicon

lexology.com Favicon

mondaq.com

Articles

Commercial Court Upholds Jurisdiction Agreements In Favour Of Ukrainian Courts

Jun 14, 2024 | mondaq.com | Matthew Reeve |Joseph England |Robert Ward

In a judgment handed down on 6 June 2024, Mr Justice Henshaw upheld jurisdiction challenges brought by Defendant international reinsurers of aircraft operator insurance policies, premised on Ukrainian exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) in the reinsurance contracts.
Commercial Court upholds jurisdiction agreements in favour of Ukrainian Courts

Jun 13, 2024 | lexology.com | Matthew Reeve |Joseph England |Robert Ward

OVERVIEWIn a judgment handed down on 6 June 2024, Mr Justice Henshaw upheld jurisdiction challenges brought by Defendant international reinsurers of aircraft operator insurance policies, premised on Ukrainian exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) in the reinsurance contracts.
Case Summary: Commercial Court refuses to enforce Russian jurisdiction clauses in US$ 10 billion insurance claims for aircraft stranded in Russia

Apr 2, 2024 | lexology.com | Chirag Karia KC |Robert-Jan Temmink KC |Matthew Reeve |Peter Stevenson |Tom Bird |Joseph England | +3 more

OVERVIEWIn an extensive Judgment of over 200 pages, Mr Justice Henshaw rejected jurisdiction challenges brought by the Defendant international reinsurers on the basis of Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs). Finding that the mostly western owners and lessors of over 200 aircraft were very unlikely to receive a fair trial in Russia, he refused to order a stay of the English proceedings. The case is one of the Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2024.
A successful perversity appeal and the dismissal of a claim by the EAT

Dec 19, 2023 | lexology.com | Joseph England

A case concerned with a collection of errors including fairness of procedure, construction of discrimination comparators and Meek compliance. Overview1. In Simmons v No.8 Partnership [2023] EAT 140, Joseph England represented the successful Respondent in proving that a Tribunal decision was so flawed that it should not only be overturned but the EAT could also substitute its own view to dismiss the discrimination claim.
‘Only 3% of whistleblowing claims are successful at hearing’: lies, damn lies and statistics; or what we can understand of success rates from the Tribunal statistics

Oct 9, 2023 | lexology.com | Joseph England

The following has been written by Joseph England, the author of NHS Whistleblowing and the Law, a handbook providing a practical and comprehensive study of the law of whistleblowing both within and outside the NHS. In September, two sets of Tribunal statistics were published that provide a breakdown of different types of claims and what percentage conclude through different outcomes (e.g. ACAS settlement, success at hearing, etc).
New ET1 and ET3 forms and process

Sep 7, 2023 | lexology.com | Joseph England

New ET1 (claim) and ET3 (response) forms have been launched, as well as a video produced by HMCTS to assist users to register for the new MyHMCTS portal and upload an ET3 using that portal. MyHMCTS is designed to be an online platform that will enable parties to manage their cases digitally, such as by the electronic uploading of documents rather than email, cloud systems or post. The new ET1 and ET3 forms do not make major changes.
Giving Evidence from abroad - many questions remain

Sep 7, 2023 | lexology.com | Joseph England

The long-awaited list of countries who have given permission for their citizens to give evidence has been published by the government, but many issues still remain and in many cases parties will be left with the pre-existing system of having to ask the Tribunal to ask the country. The list can be found at: The good: various countries are listed as having given permission.
Ignorance is bliss, or at least probably not harassment

Jul 6, 2023 | lexology.com | Joseph England

Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group Limited [2023] EAT 86 1. In Greasley-Adams v Royal Mail Group (handed down on 07 June 2023), the EAT considered whether the effect of conduct can amount to harassment when the Claimant was unaware of comments made by colleagues until later in time. The EAT held that without awareness at the time that the relevant act occurred, the effect cannot be harassment. 2.