Mr Jake Hardy

Jake Hardy

Lawyer biography

Date admitted

September 2000

Expertise

Jake is a Senior Associate in RPC's Commercial Litigation Group, specialising in banking and financial litigation with an emphasis on capital markets and portfolio/fund management disputes.

Examples of Relevant work

  • Acting for an institutional investor against a London-based investment bank in relation to the non-performance of a structured credit-linked note.
  • Acting for a private investor in relation to claims in contract and tort arising from the mis-selling of a First-to-Default CLN.Acting for a bank in relation to claims arising under Sharia-law compliant financing extended to an insolvent Middle-Eastern family conglomerate, and associated claims stemming from letters of credit.
  • JPMorgan Chase v Springwell Navigation Corporation - Acting for the investor in a $500m claim involving allegations of mis-selling, negligent advice and misrepresentation
  • "Hollywood 4 & 5" - acting for Asset Backed Capital, an SIV investor, in proceedings to recover an investment made in highly rated but defaulted film-finance securitised notes which had been credit enhanced with an insurance policy issued by a multiline insurer which on default refused cover.

Updates

Litigation

Letter of contract versus business common sense – latest from Court of Appeal
United Kingdom | 20 November 2018

In the latest of a long line of higher court authorities debating the boundaries between black letter and more purposive approaches to contractual construction, the Court of Appeal has taken another step away from the high-water marks of the business common sense approach to contractual meaning. The decision confirms that parties are more likely to be able to work contractual machinery according to the black letter terms in which it is set out on the face of the contract.

Contractual fiction clauses, unfair contract terms, parliamentary sovereignty and limits of party autonomy
United Kingdom | 03 July 2018

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal set down a significant marker that so-called 'contractual estoppel' has no special status and is to be treated as just another form of exclusion of liability. In particular, it was ruled for the first time that any reliance on a contractual estoppel to seek to defend a claim for pre-contractual misrepresentation is an attempt to exclude liability which falls to be assessed for reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

In the Matter of Agrokor DD: model laws and PIK toggle loans
United Kingdom | 21 November 2017

A recent application made by the insolvency practitioner of Agrokor, a major Croatian conglomerate, resulted in recognition in England of a stay of civil proceedings against the group. The purpose of the application was to halt any proceedings in relation to Agrokor's securities and debt obligations containing English law and jurisdiction provisions, pending the restructuring in the Croatian insolvency proceedings of the group's affairs.

Supreme Court, economic tort and jurisdiction
United Kingdom | 04 April 2017

The Supreme Court recently handed down a short but important judgment on jurisdiction under the EU Brussels Regulation. The court held in no uncertain terms that jurisdiction for the economic tort of inducing a breach of contract between a claimant and a third party lies with the home courts of the place where the harm was directly suffered as a result of the tortious acts.

High Court considers validity and timing of contractual notices in close-out procedures
United Kingdom | 08 November 2016

In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV the High Court considered important issues concerning the validity and timing of contractual notices, banking business hours in London and an important point on the English court's approach to determining what counterfactual hypothetical valuations would have been reached by financial markets participants under a contractual discretion to value securities.

Let's call it quits: cruise ships, capital losses and mitigation
United Kingdom | 02 February 2016

The Court of Appeal recently considered a short but important point of law in relation to the calculation of damages in English law. The context in which it arose was an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator in a shipping charterparty dispute, but it is of significance much more widely in relation to English law contractual damages claims.

Otkritie and the Aldi requirement
United Kingdom | 01 September 2015

The High Court recently considered what penalties it should impose on claimants which, after obtaining judgment against one set of defendants at trial, then sought to bring a second set of proceedings which arose from the same facts and issues, but against different defendants. The decision considered the Aldi requirement to consult with the court in such situations.

Reflex actions: Plaza BV v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation
United Kingdom | 03 February 2015

The recent judgment in Plaza BV v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of mandatory application of Article 2 of the EU Brussels Regulation. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the European Court of Justice decision in Owusu v Jackson.

Bribes and undisclosed commissions to agents: supreme clarity
United Kingdom | 23 September 2014

The recent Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC concerned the enforcement rights which are available in the English courts to the principals of fiduciary agents where those agents have made unauthorised profits from secret commissions or bribes. The nature of the rights which arise in this situation is a subject with a considerable history of debate.

Joint defendants, default judgments and the limits of issue estoppel
United Kingdom | 24 June 2014

In proceedings with multiple defendants in which the claimant had obtained default judgment against Defendant A, Defendant B (which had statutory joint liability for A's actions) was not bound by an issue estoppel raised by the default judgment against A. Further, B was entitled (notwithstanding substantial delay on its part) to set aside the default judgment which had been obtained against A.

When within Rome I or II, do as your EU counterpart might do – but not exactly
United Kingdom | 11 March 2014

The Court of Appeal recently considered the application of the EU Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. In particular, it examined the extent to which Rome II imports foreign law and procedure into the English courts in cases where that regulation applies, and the scope and meaning of 'law' in that context.

The Alexandros T: Supreme Court considers Regulation 44/2001
United Kingdom | 03 December 2013

The Supreme Court has delivered an important decision on the application of Articles 27 and 28 of EU Regulation 44/2001 in the English courts. The decision has once again emphasised the importance that the English courts in particular attribute to contractual jurisdiction clauses and their willingness to give them wide effect.

Supreme Court sheds light on service of English proceedings abroad
United Kingdom | 06 August 2013

The Supreme Court recently considered the requirements for service of English proceedings abroad, particularly on prospective defendants based in a state that is not a member of one of the international conventions governing service of proceedings. The court set down a clear marker that the procedural rules governing service of English proceedings in those circumstances are to be given a purposive interpretation.

Hope for hold-outs: High Court rules on collective action clauses
United Kingdom | 21 August 2012

A recent decision sets limits on the permissible use of collective action clauses and the related concept of the exit consent procedure. It still allows issuers to construct exit consent procedures that give meaningful inducements to facilitate the orderly restructuring of debt obligations, but protects against egregious abuse.

A pragmatic approach to service abroad
United Kingdom | 22 May 2012

Most English civil lawyers are aware that service of English proceedings in Russia under the Hague Convention is a painfully slow process. A recent decision demonstrates the pragmatic approach that the English courts are prepared to take to the issue of proper service of proceedings, especially when dealing with urgent injunctive proceedings whose purpose would otherwise be thwarted.

Sent down under Ablyazov judicial fire
United Kingdom | 13 March 2012

The proceedings between JSC BTA Bank and its former chairman Mukhtar Ablyazov, together with various of his associates and associated companies, have been one of the most dramatic court battles in recent years. In considering the tools available to it in the face of what it found to be wilful contempt of its authority, the court has expanded the armoury of those seeking to enforce the terms of interlocutory orders.

Assessing the source: unreliable witnesses and imprecise recipes
United Kingdom | 13 December 2011

A recent High Court judgment demonstrates the difficult art of determining issues on which all the direct witnesses have been demonstrated to be unreliable. It also contains a significant reminder to claimants and their solicitors to monitor the continuing belief in the statements set out in a letter before action and to issue corrections when the need to do so becomes apparent.

Fugitives from justice: the limits of solicitor-client confidentiality
United Kingdom | 27 September 2011

The High Court increasingly has to grapple with complex litigation involving recalcitrant foreign parties, often operating in jurisdictions which are not amenable to enforcing English court orders. Solicitors for such defendants will face a delicate task in explaining how far they can resist disclosing contact information to hostile parties where the courts view disclosure as necessary to give effect to their orders.

Private law and public justice
United Kingdom | 16 August 2011

A recent decision is a sharp reminder that the courts' public service function is not necessarily subservient to the mutual wishes of the parties in commercial litigation. It underlines the imperative for parties to assess their position in the wake of the trial, while judgment is being drafted, where a judgment may present a significant enough reputational risk to justify settlement.

No Norwich Pharmacal against innocent, mixed-up lawyers
United Kingdom | 15 March 2011

Disputes between Russian oligarchs continue to keep the London courts and legal profession busy. A recent case arising out of dispute over control of the Norilsk Nickel mining group suggests, among other things, that applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders against solicitors will be treated similarly to applications against banks for disclosure of details of their customers' affairs.

Court of Appeal bolsters judgment in default procedure
United Kingdom | 18 January 2011

The Court of Appeal recently reviewed one of the most potentially draconian procedural provisions available in English civil litigation: judgment in default. Default judgment is a risk which can and should be avoided; if it is not, applications to set aside must be made rapidly. Delay will not necessarily be excused by the existence of a good arguable defence to the claim if this has not been advanced within the relevant deadlines.

High Court jurisdiction in cross-border multi-party disputes - the 'dog's tail' test
United Kingdom | 02 November 2010

A wave of financial crisis litigation has brought many jurisdictional battles before the High Court. Under the Brussels Regulation, a contracting state court cannot decline jurisdiction if the party being sued is domiciled in its jurisdiction, even if the court believes that the dispute would be better heard in the courts of a non-contracting state. However, what is the approach to other parties to the dispute that are not domiciled in England?

Dangers of relying on after-the-event insurance
United Kingdom | 31 August 2010

A recent case serves as a warning to defendants in civil litigation that a claimant's after-the-event insurance is sometimes no substitute for security for costs. Moreover, it is when a defendant is most deserving of having its costs paid - because a claimant has knowingly pursued a fraudulent claim - that after-the-event insurance is likely to evaporate.