Forsters’ Commercial Dispute Resolution team recognised in The Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2026
14 January 2026
News
The Lawyer’s list of the Top 20 cases to be heard in the Courts of England and Wales in 2026 features Hipgnosis Music Limited (In Liquidation) v Merck Mercuriadis & Ors in which Forsters acts for the Claimant.
The Forsters team is led by Partner and Head of Disputes, Benedict Walton, with support from Senior Associate Edward Richards and Associates Nicholas Owen, Frances Snowball and Saffy Sall. Forsters instruct Edward Davies KC and Anna Scharnetzky (both of Erskine Chambers). A four-and-a-half-week trial is expected to begin in late February 2026.
Navigating the new frontier: alternative enforcement injunctions, fraudulent default judgments, and cross-border enforcement
12 December 2025
News
The recent decision of the English Commercial Court in Federal Republic of Nigeria and another v Williams[2025] EWHC 2217 (Comm) marks a significant development in the law of anti-enforcement injunctions (AEIs), particularly in the context of sovereign disputes and international enforcement strategy. Mr Justice Henshaw’s judgment expands the scope of anti-enforcement injunctions (AEIs) to restrain enforcement of English judgments abroad. This is a notable evolution in the court’s equitable jurisdiction and is the first reported instance of the English court limiting the enforcement of its own judgments. Yet what are the wider implications at stake?
Anti-enforcement injunctions: a broader reach
Traditionally, AEIs have been deployed to prevent enforcement of foreign judgments in England. In this case, the court granted an AEI to restrain enforcement of an English default judgment in the United States (New York). The judgment clarifies that there is no principled reason to distinguish between foreign and domestic judgments when considering injunctive relief – especially where serious allegations of fraud are in play.
Henshaw J held that the English court has jurisdiction to restrain enforcement of its own judgments abroad, particularly where enforcement would be oppressive or unjust. The court applied the higher threshold of a “high probability of success” given the serious nature of the fraud allegations, and found that FGN and AG’s claim met this standard.
This decision confirms that AEIs are not confined to foreign judgments and can be used to protect the integrity of English proceedings from misuse abroad.
Fraudulent default judgments and cross-border enforcement
At the heart of the dispute was a 2018 English default judgment in favour of Dr Williams for approximately USD 15 million. This judgment was obtained as part of Dr Williams’ long-running dispute with the Federal Government of Nigeria and its Attorney General – a dispute that stems from a 1986 undercover operation that led to his conviction and later pardon. Nigeria alleges that the judgment was obtained through fraud, including forged documents and misrepresentations. The court found that Nigeria had a strong prima facie case and that enforcement in New York would risk irreparable harm before the fraud claim could be resolved.
The judgment underscores the court’s willingness to intervene where enforcement abroad would frustrate the administration of justice. The AEI was granted to preserve the status quo and prevent a potentially fraudulent judgment from being executed in a foreign jurisdiction.
Importantly, the court balanced the equities: while Dr Williams faced delay, Nigeria offered a cross-undertaking in damages, and interest would continue to accrue. This careful calibration of harm reinforced the appropriateness of injunctive relief.
Comity and judicial cooperation
The decision also reflects a nuanced approach to comity. The English court acknowledged that restraining enforcement of its own judgment abroad poses fewer comity concerns than interfering with foreign judgments. Moreover, the New York court had already stayed enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the English fraud claim, demonstrating a high degree of judicial cooperation.
This mutual deference between jurisdictions illustrates a growing trend of cross-border judicial restraint, where courts respect each other’s processes to ensure fair outcomes. The AEI served not as a challenge to foreign sovereignty, but as a mechanism to uphold the integrity of English proceedings.
Implications for enforcement strategy
For international litigators, this case offers several strategic insights to be borne front of mind:
AEIs as a defensive tool: AEIs can now be considered in enforcement planning even against English judgments, particularly in cases where there are allegations of fraud.
Equity-driven strategy: Litigators should assess the strength of fraud claims early and be prepared to offer undertakings to support injunctive relief.
Cross-border coordination: Engaging with foreign courts to secure stays can bolster the case for AEIs and prevent premature enforcement of judgments.
Preserving forum integrity: AEIs help maintain coherent litigation strategy and prevent fragmentation across jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The Commercial Court’s decision in Nigeria v Williams represents a significant extension of AEI jurisprudence, affirming the court’s commitment to protecting its processes from abuse. Significantly, for international litigators, this decision signals a need for proactive, coordinated strategies that balance enforcement objectives with the integrity of proceedings across jurisdictions.
As fraud and enforcement increasingly intersect across borders, ultimately, this judgment provides a timely and practical precedent for equitable intervention in an increasingly interconnected litigation landscape.
Instant messages, long term consequences – Insights from DAZN v Coupang
28 November 2025
News
In DAZN Limited (“DAZN”) v Coupang Corp. (“Coupang”), the Court of Appeal has delivered a timely reminder that under English law, informal communications (such as emails and WhatsApp messages), can be sufficient to form a legally binding contract – even where there is reference to the subsequent preparation of a formal written agreement.
While the case is highly fact specific, the Court of Appeal’s decision provides helpful guidance for businesses (particularly those involved in contract negotiation) and a warning that informal communications can have legal consequences.
Background
FIFA (the sole owner of the broadcasting rights to the 2025 World Cup) licensed its rights to the DAZN Group (of which DAZN is a part). DAZN was permitted to sublicense its rights in different territories. Between January and March 2025, DAZN entered into discussions with Coupang (a major e-commerce and streaming platform in South Korea) regarding the sublicensing of the 2025 World Cup broadcasting rights. Those discussions were conducted primarily via WhatsApp (including voice notes), phone calls and later emails.
On 27 February 2025, Coupang emailed DAZN with a “proposal” to acquire a co-exclusive license to the 2025 World Cup (live and video-on-demand) broadcasting rights in South Korea for US$1.7 million. On 3 March 2025, DAZN sent an email to Coupang stating: “we will accept Coupang Play’s offer for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 we will start contract drafting and hope to share the draft for your agreement soon”. Two WhatsApp messages were also sent by DAZN to Coupang on 3 March 2025 which similarly confirmed that the proposal in the 27 February 2025 email had been accepted. It was not disputed that the parties had anticipated signing a formal contract at a later date.
The following day, DAZN informed Coupang that it had received a higher offer from another bidder. That rival bid was later increased. DAZN considered that it was entitled to accept that higher bid on the basis that it had only reached a non-binding agreement in principle with Coupang. Coupang disagreed and initiated legal proceedings.
The High Court agreed with Coupang, finding that a binding contract had been concluded. DAZN appealed.
Appeal
The Court of Appeal dismissed DAZN’s appeal in its entirety, finding it clear that “the parties had reached an agreement by which they intended to be immediately and legally bound by the exchange of the emails in question”. Key factors included:
All of the essential terms had been negotiated and agreed in advance via WhatsApp.
It was common practice in the industry for deals to be negotiated orally or informally over WhatsApp and then formalised via email.
There were numerous communications that showed that those negotiating believed that the deal had been concluded.
Though not decisive, the parties did not qualify their discussions as subject to contract and DAZN had done so in other draft heads of terms.
With the World Cup approaching, the deal was time sensitive, but the parties showed no urgency in drafting or signing the formal contract after the 3 March email, which indicated that they did not consider it necessary.
Comment
While the judgment is highly fact specific, it nonetheless serves as an important reminder of the limited formalities required under English law to create a binding contract. Businesses, particularly those operating in fast-paced or informal settings, should therefore consider:
Stating whether negotiations are being conducted “subject to contract” (though this will not necessarily be decisive).
Ensuring that adequate internal policies are in place regarding the channels by which negotiations are conducted and what internal approvals are required before a deal is accepted. Clear lines of communication and approvals processes will be particularly important for businesses with multiple deal teams negotiating often fast-moving transactions, simultaneously with various counterparties.
Ensuring that those negotiating understand when they may be bound by an agreement.
Keeping contemporaneous records of any oral negotiations.
Involving external advisors promptly where issues arise – particularly where there is time-sensitivity.
The line between informal dialogue and enforceable agreement is where many disputes arise. DAZN serves as a reminder that informality in negotiation does not avoid legal consequence and, as such, the benefits of speed and convenience in instant messaging must be measured against the risks for businesses when things go wrong.
The age of automation: When AI errors become legal risks
1 October 2025
News
As the age of AI continues to transform the economy and wider society, for legal professionals this technological revolution has brought both promise and peril. Whilst it undoubtedly presents opportunities for lawyers, a recent judgment of the High Court serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers posed by AI for legal practitioners– Ayinde v Haringey, and Hamad Al-Haroun v (1) Qatar National Bank QPSC & (2) QNB Capital LLC, [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
Overview
The two cases were listed together under the so-called Hamid jurisdiction, in which the English Court has an “inherent power to regulate its own procedures and to enforce duties that lawyers owe to the court”.
Ayinde v Haringey
Here, the underlying proceedings concerned a judicial review brought against a local authority. Relevant to the Hamid jurisdiction was that one of the barristers had (i) included in their submissions citations to cases which did not exist; and (ii) incorrectly summarised a legislative provision. When the barrister’s instructing solicitor asked for copies of the cases allegedly cited, the barrister was unable to provide them. Further, in response to concerns raised about citations to non-existent cases, the barrister had drafted a response which sought to downplay the issue.
Although there was no finding that it was the use of AI specifically that had resulted in the citations to non-existent cases and the inaccurate description of legislation, the Court concluded that the barrister “could have checked the cases she cited by searching the National Archives’ caselaw website or by going to the law library of her Inn of Court. We regret to say that she has not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”
Al-Haroun v (1) Qatar National Bank & (2) QNB Capital
The underlying dispute in this case related to a claim for damages arising from the alleged breach of a financing agreement. The relevant facts for the purposes of the Hamid jurisdiction were that the solicitor had relied on his lay client’s legal research without checking it. It transpired that the ‘legal research’ was based on case citations which had been generated partly using AI. Both the lay client and the solicitor issued an apology to the Court.
Key takeaways
There are a number of important takeaways for practitioners. Although no contempt of court proceedings were initiated in either case (despite a finding in the Ayinde case that the threshold for contempt had been met), the cases highlight how a cavalier approach to using AI can give rise to conduct issues; indeed, in both cases referrals to the relevant professional regulator were made. Moreover, the Court noted that a copy of its judgment would be sent to the Bar Council and the Law Society so that they can “consider as a matter of urgency what further steps they should now take in the light of this judgment”.
Whilst this case concerns the use of AI in the dispute resolution context specifically, there is a growing trend for lawyers to use AI-assisted tools in all areas of legal practice. It bears noting that the professional conduct obligations to which lawyers are subject apply generally, whether or not lawyers are interacting with courts or tribunals.
At a time when developments in AI are front and centre of the legal industry, the judgment serves as an important reminder of the potential pitfalls of using AI for legal practitioners. Whilst the cost-saving benefits of AI are well-known, the judgment is a salutary warning that what may seem like a time-saving shortcut must be approached with great caution. For lawyers, the message is clear: professionalism and integrity can never be short-circuited.
Forsters secures victory in defence of €50 million investment fraud case
2 April 2025
News
G.I. Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v XY ERS UK Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 740 (Comm)
The Dispute Resolution team at Forsters has successfully acted for Skew Base Investments SCA RAIF (a Luxembourg alternative investment fund) and its general partner, Skew Base S.A.R.L, in their defence of a €50 million claim brought in the Commercial Court by ex-Ferrari Chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, his son, Matteo, and their family investment vehicle, G.I. Globinvestment Limited.
The claim (which was brought against a total of ten defendants) arose out of the significant losses suffered by the claimants on their investments in the Skew Base fund as a result of market turbulence in 2020 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As against the Skew Base entities, it was alleged that they had participated in an unlawful means conspiracy pursuant to which they were said to have maintained a “façade” to the effect that the Skew Base fund was run independently from certain other defendants.
Following a seven-week trial, during which the Court heard evidence from 18 witnesses, Mr Justice Jacobs handed down a 342-page judgment dismissing all of the claims, including those as against the Skew Base entities. In doing so, he found (amongst other things) that the claimants had failed to establish the underlying wrongs (namely deceit, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance) upon which they relied for the purposes of the conspiracy claim. He also held that he did not consider “that the evidence establishes that there was in fact anything that could properly be considered to be a façade at all”.
Forsters was also successful in obtaining an order for indemnity costs against the claimants in favour of the Skew Base entities.
The team at Forsters was led by Partner and Head of Commercial Disputes Steven Richards who was supported by Associate Frances Snowball. Forsters instructed Robert Weekes KC and Warren Fitt (both of Blackstone Chambers).
Partner Steven Richards has commented that: “I am delighted that we have achieved such a resounding victory for our clients and that their position has been entirely vindicated following the comprehensive dismissal of the very serious claim brought against them in fraud”.
