Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

Commercial litigation demands careful preservation of electronic evidence from the moment a dispute emerges. Documents disclosed during proceedings can fundamentally alter case outcomes, yet businesses often underestimate how early preservation obligations arise and how widely relevant material may be scattered across devices, platforms, and archived systems.

Recent UK case law demonstrates how experimental evidence can decisively influence patent disputes on infringement and validity, but only when parties navigate strict procedural requirements, proportionate disclosure obligations, and careful alignment with patent specifications. Courts increasingly scrutinize the design, statistical rigor, and relevance of experiments while maintaining pragmatic standards for admissibility versus persuasiveness.

Facing harassment allegations requires careful handling to avoid worsening your legal position. Understanding what constitutes harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, preserving crucial evidence, and knowing when to seek professional legal representation can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

Eversheds Sutherland provides comprehensive legal services through a global network of separate and distinct legal entities. The firm's website offers access to legal professionals, insights on international arbitration, workplace technology deployment, and sovereign immunity cases, while maintaining clear disclaimers about the general information nature of its materials.

The UK Supreme Court's narrow 3-2 decision in The Kingdom of Bahrain v Shehabi denies state immunity to foreign governments accused of remotely hacking individuals within UK territory, establishing that cyber surveillance operations causing harm to UK residents fall outside traditional immunity protections. This landmark ruling clarifies the territorial tort exception under the State Immunity Act 1978 and may expose foreign states to liability for state-sponsored cyberattacks targeting UK-based individuals

The UK Supreme Court has ruled on whether sovereign states can invoke immunity to resist enforcement of adverse ICSID arbitration awards in English courts. Spain and Zimbabwe challenged the registration...

Piers Morgan has threatened legal action against Earl Charles Spencer over claims in his memoir 'Swan Song: Diana, My Sister' that falsely attributed intrusive photographs of Princess Diana to Morgan's editorship. The Earl swiftly apologized for the factual error, raising questions about how early apologies and offers of amends might affect potential defamation proceedings and damage awards.

AI has fundamentally altered how reputation is shaped, with AI-powered search engines now delivering authoritative-seeming summaries rather than traditional search results. From deepfakes and voice cloning to coordinated review bombing and bot-driven harassment campaigns, the threats are evolving rapidly—but so are the defensive tools available to those who understand how to deploy them strategically.

AI-generated content poses unprecedented reputational threats, from deepfakes to coordinated bot campaigns. While English law lacks AI-specific remedies, existing legal frameworks—including harassment protections, defamation claims, and the Online Safety Act 2023—offer powerful tools for those who act decisively. The emerging question of AI liability itself remains untested, focusing attention on the human decisions behind AI deployment.

Recent statistics reveal a 13% rise in deaths in state detention across England and Wales in 2025, reaching 622 deaths—the highest level since 2017. This increase was primarily driven by deaths in prison custody and among those detained under the Mental Health Act, raising critical questions about state care systems and the role of coroner inquests in preventing future deaths.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that redress payments made by regulated firms under the FCA's complaints-handling regime cannot be used to seek contribution from other parties responsible for the same underlying mis-selling. This decision, arising from a dispute over historic PPI mis-selling between AXA and Santander, clarifies the limits of recovery under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and has significant implications for firms bearing regulatory responsibility for redress schemes.

Facing a dangerous driving charge can result in severe penalties including imprisonment and lengthy driving bans, but the legal threshold between dangerous and careless driving is subject to interpretation. Understanding the critical differences in evidence standards and potential defences could mean the difference between a criminal conviction with mandatory disqualification and a lesser penalty with discretionary sanctions.