Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) – WLR Daily

Posted June 30th, 2015 in accountants, appeals, contracts, damages, duty of care, law reports, loans, negligence by sally

Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) [2015] EWCA Civ 629; [2015] WLR (D) 278

‘In a claim resulting from negligent advice the damages were not to be reduced to reflect a repayment to the claimant of debt made pursuant to a refinancing where such transaction, while arising because of the relevant breach of duty, did not arise in the ordinary course of business.’

WLR Daily, 25th June 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidation) (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson LLP) – WLR Daily

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc – WLR Daily

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc: [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] WLR (D) 261

‘An unsuccessful party in a construction contract adjudication was entitled to be repaid any money paid pursuant to the adjudication if the underlying dispute was finally determined in his favour, and the cause of action for the recovery of such money accrued on the date on which the money was paid. However, the cause of action of a party who wished to bring proceedings for more than the amount which he had been awarded under an adjudication accrued on the date of the relevant breach of contract or duty.’

WLR Daily, 17th June 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc – WLR Daily

Supreme Court: losing party to adjudication has six years to challenge that decision in the courts – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 19th, 2015 in contracts, dispute resolution, limitations, news by tracey

‘A party seeking repayment of sums paid following an adjudication award against it has six years from the date of payment to do so, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 17th June 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Supreme Court: losing party to adjudication has six years to challenge that decision in the courts – OUT-LAW.com

Appeal court surprised by solicitors’ partnership agreed “in the pub” – Legal Futures

Posted June 16th, 2015 in appeals, contracts, law firms, news, partnerships, solicitors by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision against one solicitor in favour of her former partner, after expressing surprise that the pair had no more than a verbal agreement made in the pub over a drink.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 12th June 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on Appeal court surprised by solicitors’ partnership agreed “in the pub” – Legal Futures

Contract entitled landlord to raise service charge irrespective of increase in costs, says UK Supreme Court – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 12th, 2015 in contracts, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges, Supreme Court by sally

‘Lease provisions that would ultimately increase service charges payable by the tenants of a number of holiday homes near Swansea to more than £1 million a year should be allowed to stand, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th June 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Contract entitled landlord to raise service charge irrespective of increase in costs, says UK Supreme Court – OUT-LAW.com

Divorcee Michelle Young to be sued over financing of bitter legal battle – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 8th, 2015 in contracts, costs, divorce, news, trials by sally

‘Saga of divorce battle takes extraordinary new twist as financial backers plan to sue her for breach of contract.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 7th June 2015

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Divorcee Michelle Young to be sued over financing of bitter legal battle – Daily Telegraph

Breyer Group plc and others v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Free Power for Schools LP v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Homesun Holdings Ltd and another v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Touch Solar Ltd v Department of Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily

Posted May 11th, 2015 in contracts, damages, energy, human rights, law reports, time limits by sally

Breyer Group plc and others v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Free Power for Schools LP v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Homesun Holdings Ltd and another v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Touch Solar Ltd v Department of Energy and Climate Change [2015] EWCA Civ 408; [2015] WLR (D) 192

‘Contracts which had been secured might be said to part of the goodwill of a business because they were the product of its past work, and thus capable of amounting to possessions within article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Contracts which the business hoped to secure in the future were no more than that and were merely a potential source of future income which could not amount to possessions under the article.’

WLR Daily, 28th April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Breyer Group plc and others v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Free Power for Schools LP v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Homesun Holdings Ltd and another v Department of Energy and Climate Change; Touch Solar Ltd v Department of Energy and Climate Change – WLR Daily

Understanding foreign signs – how to make sure your contract is properly executed – Technology Law Update

Posted May 6th, 2015 in appeals, company law, contracts, EC law, international law, news by sally

‘The negotiations are over, the deal is done. Now it’s time to sign the contracts. But before popping the champagne corks, you’ll need to make sure that those signatures are valid. Here’s a cautionary tale of what can go wrong.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 1st May 2015

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off on Understanding foreign signs – how to make sure your contract is properly executed – Technology Law Update

Contract Formation and the Fog of Rectification – Speech by Sir Terence Etherton

Posted April 30th, 2015 in contracts, news, rectification, speeches by sally

Contract Formation and the Fog of Rectification (PDF)

Speech by Sir Terence Etherton

Judiciary of England and Wales, 24th April 2015

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Comments Off on Contract Formation and the Fog of Rectification – Speech by Sir Terence Etherton

Game over – New Law Journal

Posted April 30th, 2015 in contracts, exclusion clauses, limitations, news by sally

‘Termination & its consequences. Chris Nillesen reports.’
Full story

New Law Journal, 24th April 2015

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off on Game over – New Law Journal

TUPE and Property Management – Tanfield Chambers

‘It is well known that where the management or ownership of property passes from one company to another, the employment of staff engaged in property management or maintenance may transfer with it under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). However, it is not unusual for several different managed service contracts simultaneously to transfer from one contractor to another or for a number of sub-contracted maintenance contracts to be taken in-house by a property management company. A recent case has considered how TUPE applies in these circumstances involving multiple contracts.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 27th April 2015

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Comments Off on TUPE and Property Management – Tanfield Chambers

ParkingEye drives home a penalty – charge for a breach of contract allowed – Technology Law Update

Posted April 29th, 2015 in appeals, consumer protection, contracts, fines, news, parking by sally

‘A dispute over a parking fine has received a lot of press attention from the angle of the aggrieved motorist standing up to big business. But there are wider implications. The recent Court of Appeal decision in ParkingEye v Beavis demonstrates a more flexible approach to penalty clauses in contracts, and illustrates how the unfairness rules will be applied to penalty charges in consumer-facing contracts (EULAs, e-commerce terms etc).’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 28th April 2015

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off on ParkingEye drives home a penalty – charge for a breach of contract allowed – Technology Law Update

Adjudication in UK Construction Contracts: A Critical Look – 39 Essex Chambers

‘This brief paper arises out of a 39 Essex Chambers seminar on the 19 March 2015. The title of the Seminar was “Adjudication Enforcement: Time for a Change?”. The seminar comprised two debates. The first debate considered the strengths and weaknesses of adjudication as it stands at the moment. The second debate looked afresh at the Human Rights Act and asked whether or not it might yet impact adjudication. Each debate has a short introduction. This paper is an amalgam of the two introductions.’

Full story (PDF)

39 Essex Chambers, 2nd April 2015

Source: www.39essex.com

Comments Off on Adjudication in UK Construction Contracts: A Critical Look – 39 Essex Chambers

Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council – WLR Daily

Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2015] EWHC 604 (TCC); [2015] WLR (D) 137

‘The term “service in accordance with rules of court” in regulation 47F(5) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as amended, meant that valid service was achieved when the relevant step for service of a claim form, set out in CPR r 7.5(1), was completed within the seven-day time limit prescribed by regulation 47F(1).’

WLR Daily, 20th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Heron Bros Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council – WLR Daily

Contractual discretion – lost at sea? – Technology Law Update

Posted March 26th, 2015 in compensation, contract of employment, contracts, news, suicide by sally

‘Contracts often include terms that give discretion to one of the parties to make a decision affecting the other party. Does that mean that the party with the discretion can use it freely? Apparently not, according to a recent Supreme Court case.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 25th March 2015

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off on Contractual discretion – lost at sea? – Technology Law Update

The Insurance Act 2015: practical changes for insurers to consider – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 25th, 2015 in contracts, disclosure, fraud, insurance, Law Commission, legislation, news, Scotland by sally

‘The 2015 Insurance Act will, subject to an 18-month transition period, introduce what the UK government has described as “the biggest reform to insurance contract law in more than a century”.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, March 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on The Insurance Act 2015: practical changes for insurers to consider – OUT-LAW.com

Avoiding the Accidental Settlement – No. 5 Chambers

Posted March 24th, 2015 in agreements, contracts, news by sally

‘The question of whether two Parties have entered in to a binding settlement compromising a case is often just as (if not more) acrimonious matter as the substantive case. In particular as the devil is often in the detail of any settlement, the intention is often that even where settlement is agreed in principle, one party does not wish to be bound to the settlement until all the terms are agreed and embodied in a signed document. If this is the intention then it is important that the same is made well known to the other negotiating party, in order to avoid the pitfall of finding oneself having inadvertently entering in to a binding settlement, prior to concluding those subsequent negotiations.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 13th January 2015

Source: www.no5.com

Comments Off on Avoiding the Accidental Settlement – No. 5 Chambers

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) – WLR Daily

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWCA Civ 226; [2015] WLR (D) 133

‘Where a party, which entered an acknowledgment of service to proceedings and made an unsuccessful challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court to hear the proceedings, had entered a further acknowledgment of service in its application for permission to appeal against the court’s decision to refuse its challenge, that party would have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, within article 24 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), because of the provisions of CPR r 11(8), unless it had first applied to the court for an extension of time to file the further acknowledgment of service sufficient to enable the application for permission to appeal, or the appeal if permission was granted, to be determined.’

WLR Daily, 18th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy) – WLR Daily

High Court finds Tier 1 Entrepreneur landline requirement irrational – Free Movement

Posted March 23rd, 2015 in contracts, documents, immigration, news, visas by sally

‘The High Court has found part of the Tier 1 Entrepreneur rules to be irrational in the case of R (on the application of Sabir & Ors) & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 264 (Admin). Despite succeeding on part of the challenge, though, the case ultimately failed because there were other parts of the rules that the claimant has also been refused under and which the claimant failed to convince the judge were unlawful.’

Full story

Free Movement, 23rd March 2015

Source: www.freemovement.org.uk

Comments Off on High Court finds Tier 1 Entrepreneur landline requirement irrational – Free Movement

Priority in Sale and Leaseback – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted March 19th, 2015 in contracts, equity, leases, mortgages, news by sally

‘Scott v. Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd, in which the Supreme Court gave judgment on 22nd October 2014, has finally determined, in favour of the mortgagees, the question of priority between home owners, who had sold their homes under sale and leaseback schemes after getting into financial difficulties in return for the grant of a tenancy from the purchaser, and the mortgagees who provided the finances for the purchases. In order for the home owners’ unregistered interests to override a registered disposition under the Land Registration Act 2002, the interest had to be a proprietary interest, but prior to acquiring the legal estate a purchaser could not grant equitable rights of a proprietary character, as opposed to personal rights.’

Full story (PDF)

Radcliffe Chambers, 10th February 2015

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Comments Off on Priority in Sale and Leaseback – Radcliffe Chambers