Skip to content

Sophie Nettleton

Senior Associate

London

Nettleton Sophie
Sophie Nettleton

Senior Associate

London

News & insights

News: 27 FEBRUARY 2020

Global Antitrust group retains top three ranking by Global Competition Review

For the third year running, Allen & Overy’s global antitrust group has been ranked number three in Global Competition Review’s annual survey of the world’s leading competition practices. 

Read more

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

A misprediction is not a mistake: settlement not set aside despite change in law

A change in the law made shortly after a compromise agreement was entered into did not give rise to a common mistake of law capable of setting aside the agreement.  The High Court held that while the doctrine of mistake operates in the context of compromise agreements, there was no “common assumption” between the parties as to the relevant law in this case and therefore no mistake.  The court observed that “a mistake will more likely arise where a well-established and unquestioned rule of law is dramatically overturned than where a single decision on a new and difficult point is overruled”.  The decision highlights the reluctance of the English courts to disturb already concluded settlements on the basis of a future revision of the law: Jeremy Philip Elston v (1) Lawrence King (2) Sue Roscoe (trustees in bankruptcy of Jeremy Philip Elston) [2020] EWHC 55 (Ch).

Read more

Publications: 25 FEBRUARY 2020

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses and multiple related agreements

Disputes arising under a side letter fell within the scope of the jurisdiction clause in a separate but related loan agreement.  The asymmetric clause in the loan agreement was exclusive for the purposes of the anti-torpedo rule of the Recast Brussels Regulation (the Brussels Recast),1 so the court refused to stay the English proceedings despite the fact that they post-dated earlier proceedings in Germany.  This decision will be of interest to lenders and other parties who enter into multiple related agreements and rely on asymmetric clauses to maximise their enforcement rights: Etihad Airways PJSC v Flother [2019] EWHC 3107 (Comm).

Read more

Publications: 27 MARCH 2018

Duty of good faith implied in commercial joint venture

​The High Court has implied a duty of good faith into an oral joint venture contract. While the generally accepted position is that there is no free-standing duty of good faith in English law, this decision is a reminder that the English courts may imply a duty of good faith into a “relational contract”, in this case a joint venture agreement.  In practice, when seen through the lens of Leggatt LJ, a number of the features of joint ventures and long term co-investment could become the basis for one party to raise a defence or counterclaim based on good faith and a restriction on the ability of the other to pursue its own interests in a competitive market environment. This decision will be of interest to parties in long term contracts and joint ventures who are concerned about the scope of their obligations and the considerations which may apply to their performance of and exit from those arrangements: Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v Ioannis Kent (AKA John Kent), [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) (Al Nehayan v Kent), 22 February 2018

Read more

Office

London

Allen & Overy LLP
One Bishops Square
London
E1 6AD

View office →

Qualifications

Professional

Admitted as a solicitor, England and Wales, 2012

Academic

LLB, The College of Law, London, 2010

MA, French and Italian, New Hall, Cambridge University, 2007