header-logo header-logo

11 September 2026
Issue: 8176 / Categories: Legal News , Jurisdiction , International , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Estoppel crosses borders

258562
© Getty images
A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim

Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Bromwich, associate, and Marina Boterashvili, partner, at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP examine Aviator LLC v Spribe OÜ. The decision treats rules giving preclusive effect to earlier judgments as substantive, rather than merely procedural, for the purposes of Rome II. If upheld on appeal, an English court may need expert evidence of foreign law before deciding what effect a previous decision has on a later claim.

The authors also review recent authorities on estoppel arising from arbitral awards, interlocutory decisions and pure questions of law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen v MCML stresses that estoppel attaches only to the ‘immediate foundation’ of a decision—not every step in its reasoning. The doctrine’s limits therefore remain as important as its finality.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

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

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

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