The potential cost of making or defending a claim is often a concern for anyone involved in litigation or arbitration. AG has since 2008 been at the forefront of sharing the risk with its clients, and the litigation funding market has responded with a variety of different options and opportunities. And it's also a developing topic for the courts. Our Control Update newsletter reports all the latest developments, both commercial and legal.

Litigation funders – extent of their involvement and liability for costs

As we reported in a client mailshot earlier this week, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has made important amendment to its rules. The amendments are immediately in force and deal with a number of areas including appeal procedure, costs capping and costs orders.

In brief - Courts will not grant further extensions if second application is made too late

In brief - Courts will not grant further extensions if second application is made too late

In the decision of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales confirmed that liquidators may apply under rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to further extend the time within which they may bring voidable transactions proceedings.  We considered the first instance judgment in a

You are a judgment creditor with a charge over the judgment debtor’s assets and have lodged a caveat over a property owned by judgment debtor. You finally receive word from the judgment debtor that the property has been sold and you are asked to provide a withdrawal of caveat. You agree, subject to being paid the judgment debt at settlement in exchange for the withdrawal. Your request is followed by silence, and then a lapsing notice is served upon you. Your caveat will lapse unless you go to the expense of Supreme Court proceedings to extend the life of your caveat.

At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No. 57 for 2009 (the Decree).

The Decree is significant in two respects:

This article was written by Greg Standing, partner in Wragge & Co LLP's finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team and published in the July issue of Motor Finance.

When a claimant discontinues its claim, the usual position is that it has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal costs. This is the general presumption under the Civil Procedure Rules and applies unless there is good reason for it not to.

On 1 May 2009, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (the "Administrators") submitted an Ordinary Application to the High Court, seeking directions concerning the obligations of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("LBIE"), in relation to the handling of client money received by it prior to entering into administration (the "Application"). A copy of the Application can be found here.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".