Global Legal Insights 2025

R S Surtees, the 19th century novelist,
once quipped that there were three types of lawyers: able; unable; and
lamentable - a quip as apposite today as it was back then. From lawyers on TikTok; to lawyers that
weaponise the rule of law for lawfare campaigns; to a barrister that cites a
case in Court found on the AI programme ChatGPT that never existed. The role of lawyers in every aspect of life
continues to expand, yet the interaction the profession has with modern
technology fails to project a commensurate increase in credibility.



A number of interesting (real) developments this past
year include the decision on jurisdiction in Limbu & Others v Dyson
Technology [2024] EWCA Civ 1564, in which a number of Nepali and
Bangladeshi migrant workers brought claims against three companies in the Dyson
group alleging they were trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to conditions
including forced labour, assault, and false imprisonment whilst manufacturing
components and parts for the Dyson group between 2011 and 2022. At the relevant time, they were employed by
two Malaysian companies who had contracted with a Dyson entity. The workers commenced proceedings in England
against two England-based Dyson entities, as well as a Malaysian-based Dyson
entity. They also indicated an intention
to join in their employer entity, also based in Malaysia. Following a forum non conveniens
challenge, the High Court decided that Malaysia was the most appropriate
forum. This was overturned by the Court
of Appeal, and permission to appeal the decision was rejected by the Supreme
Court. The Court of Appeal held that the
first instance Judge failed to take into account that it was appropriate to
bring action in England because: the English entities are based here and have
been served as of right; they are the defendants to the 'primary claim' and
could coordinate the defence of the claim from England; and they are the 'principal
protagonist' and the Dyson Malaysia entity would be more of a 'minor and
ancillary defendant'. He also should
have taken into account the evidence from the migrant workers of the problems
they would face in Malaysia if they were required to litigate there. The decision could open the gates wider to
more 'supply chain liability' cases, so long as there is a primary liability
against, and a connection to, an English entity.



There was also the case of Zaha Hadid v The Zaha
Hadid Foundation [2024] EWHC 3325, in which the Court declined to imply a
right to terminate in favour of the licensee where only the licensor had an
express right to terminate; the Court expressly rejected the submission that
unless it implied such a right in favour of the licensor to bring the licence
to an end, it would otherwise permit the validity of indefinite contracts.



A few eyebrows have been raised at the decision in Topalsson
GmbH v Rolls-Royce [2024] EWCA Civ 1330, certainly amongst corporate
counsel, on the topic of capped liability.
On a breach of contract claim with a capped liability amount, the Court
of Appeal disagreed with the first instance Judge on how he applied a EUR5m
liability cap in the contract. The Judge
decided that Rolls-Royce was owed EUR8m, reduced to EUR7.2m with a successful
counterclaim in favour of Topalsson of EUR800k.
The Judge awarded Rolls-Royce the EUR5m, as the capped sum was in any
event less than the net amount. The
Court of Appeal held that his approach was wrong. In their wisdom, they found that he ought to
have applied the EUR5m cap to his decision on the EUR8m liability first, and then
applied the counterclaim part of his judgment to the capped amount, thus
awarding Rolls-Royce EUR4.2m. This has
sent corporate lawyers back to their boilerplates with more precise language on
whether their cap applies to a net liability figure or the gross amount.



This book is intended to act as a reference guide for
those who wish to explore legal procedures and developments in a variety of
jurisdictions. I am grateful to our team
of contributors to this book for their updates.