Considered as a cheaper, quicker and less stressful mode of dispute resolution, alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) is no longer seen as an “alternative”, and indeed has been re-named “NDR” (negotiated dispute resolution) to reflect that. Instead, it is becoming an integral part of the dispute resolution process – one which is focussed on achieving earlier and less costly resolution over which parties have control rather than engaging in an often expensive, drawn-out dispute before the court with an uncertain outcome. Here we explore where its future lies and what this means for your business.

Every so often the Court will reaffirm the primacy of express terms while re-stating the rule that implied terms can only be relied on to the extent they are (i) so obvious as to go without saying, or (ii) necessary to give an agreement business efficacy. The latest is Contra Holdings Ltd v Bamford [2023] EWCA Civ 374, handed down by the Court of Appeal last month. This commentary will come as no surprise to practitioners, and yet it serves as an important reminder that implied terms should not be relied upon as a fall-back where express drafting falls short.

The English courts have sought to lead the way in adjudicating crypto-related disputes and other technological matters in an international context. Recent decisions have demonstrated the English courts’ willingness to assist victims of crypto theft, and the ability of the English legal system to adapt in order to remain an effective jurisdiction for cases involving crypto fraud. In particular, recent decisions have established that: Software developers may owe a fiduciary duty to owners of crypto; New jurisdictional gateways are effective to expand the English courts’ jurisdictionto allow claimants to secure information orders against non-parties based overseas; and Service out of the jurisdiction may be permitted where there is a theft of crypto assets originally located in England but subsequently transferred abroad.