header-logo header-logo

International arbitration: still not done with Dunn?

180617
How did a package holiday buffet meal impact the world of international arbitration? Charlotte Pope-Williams & Adam Riley explain
  • Part one of a series of article by barristers from 3 Hare Court about both international arbitration and legal matters of universal application.
  • Discusses Griffiths v TUI, in which the Supreme Court restated the 131-year-old rule in Browne v Dunn, requiring a party to use cross-examination to challenge the evidence of any witness of the opposing party on a material point which they wish to submit to the court should not be accepted.
  • Goes on to consider the approach of UK and Commonwealth courts on applying the rule.

One may query what a case concerned with gastroenteritis and package holidays has to do with international arbitration. However, the case of Griffiths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48, [2024] 2 All ER 185 is a prime example of the UK’s Supreme Court articulating general propositions of law that are of universal application, irrespective of practice area, which could reverberate across the Commonwealth.

The rule in Browne v Dunn

Griffiths

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll