Multi-jurisdictional Disputes: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly | UK

Sarah Walker and Charity Kirby of King & Spalding discuss the good, the bad and the ugly side of multi-jurisdictional disputes, offering insights into the best asset recovery strategy.

Published on 17 July 2023
Sarah Walker, King & Spalding
Sarah Walker
Charity Kirby, King & Spalding
Charity Kirby

The Good

Putting together a good asset recovery strategy requires several elements, including:

  • completing the investigation stage thoroughly;
  • working with good corporate investigators with solid experience in asset tracing;
  • making sure there are proper grounds for belief as to the existence of assets;
  • showing that there is a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets; and
  • co-ordinating your strategy across all jurisdictions where injunctive relief is sought.

The Bad

Conversely, an asset recovery strategy can fail due to a number of factors, including:

  • a lack of preparation and poor co-ordination with local counsels and advisers in other jurisdictions; and
  • failing to tell a consistent story to all the courts involved in the dispute, which risks a breach of full and frank disclosure;

The Ugly

Multi-jurisdictional disputes can turn ugly in a number of ways, including:

  • the weaponising of full and frank disclosure; and
  • breaching of asset disclosure leading to penalties for contempt of court.

King & Spalding

King & Spalding logo, Chambers Expert Focus contributor firm
66 ranked departments and 67 ranked lawyers

Learn more about the firm's ranking in Chambers Global

View firm profile

Chambers Global Practice Guides Litigation 2023

Learn more about global developments in litigation.