‘Recent cases, including the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Bou-Simon v BGC Brokers LP and the (as yet unreported) case of Harrow LBC v Engie Regeneration (Apollo) Ltd (2018) (TCC), provide a useful reminder of the strict constraints on implying terms into a commercial contract.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st August 2018
‘Parties to building contracts are free to agree on how to allocate the risk of concurrent delay to works, the Court of Appeal ruled on Monday.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has rejected an application for summary judgment by a medical reporting agency seeking to reclaim almost £1.6m in fees from a law firm.’
Litigation Futures. 30th July 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In the recent case of R (Hutchinson & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Anor the Administrative Court considered a challenge to the creation of a new model for the provision of health and social care in England.’
Community Care Blog, 10th July 2018
Source: communitycare11kbw.com
‘In the wake of the Carillion insolvency, many sub-contractors are likely to be investigating their rights to terminate their contracts with a now defunct main contractor. Looking for a clean break, they may be tempted by the explicit termination rights that standard form building contracts often contain, and that may be deployed in the event of main contractor insolvency. On the surface, terminating appears as simple as writing to the liquidator citing the relevant provision, and declaring the contract to be at an end. However, a potential trap awaits the unwary. Unwitting sub-contractors may inadvertently forfeit any right to claim loss of bargain damages, that is, the loss of profits that would have been made had the contract carried through to completion. This is potentially a highly lucrative right, particularly if the sub-contractor is at the start of a multi-year project that was expected to generate significant future earnings. This result arises from the case of Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 4th July 2018
‘The Court of Appeal in England and Wales has ruled that a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) should not continue after the emergence of a new claim for £126 million against the insolvent company. The ruling underlined how important clarity and specificity are in contract terms.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal (CoA) has dismissed an appeal in which the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK) and its national bank argued that their custodian bank, Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), had acted in breach of contract by freezing their assets in accordance with foreign court orders.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Victory House General Partner Ltd, Re A Company [2018] EWHC 1143 (Ch), the court dismissed a party’s winding-up petition as the employer’s cross-claim was bona fide and the debt was disputed on substantial grounds.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd June 2018
‘A conditional fee agreement (CFA) that named the wrong defendant was still valid when read in the wider context of the claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 20th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A widely-drafted exclusion clause in the standard terms of a fire protection system provider was not unreasonable, and therefore should be upheld, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A genial sheikh and an overly optimistic hotelier enter a joint venture to develop a chain of luxury hotels and an online travel business. What could possibly go wrong? Other than a global financial meltdown, the Greek debt crisis, a volcano in Iceland, threats of physical violence, blackmail, accusations of swindling, furtive double-dealing, rampant opportunism and – it turns out – breach of a contractual duty of good faith.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th May 2018
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘An appeal court judge has expressed his “dismay” after estimating that legal costs “not far shy of £2m” had been spent in a case involving over 800 claims for flight-related compensation each worth only a few hundred pounds.’
Litigation Futures, 5th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal has criticised both parties in a flight compensation group claim for creating a situation where costs finished up ‘out of all proportion’ to the amount sought.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st June 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Mitchell Abbott, trainee in the dispute resolution team at CMS, offers comment on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24.’
Supreme Court Blog, 18th May 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘For many years, parts of the construction sector have pushed for improvement of the market’s treatment of retention monies. Post-Carillion and its devastating impact on suppliers, however, matters may have reached a tipping point. On 9 January 2018 – a few days before the construction giant’s collapse – the backbencher Peter Aldous introduced the Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill under Parliament’s Ten Minute Rule. Given the importance of government support in mustering a majority in the House of Commons, relatively few Private Members’ Bills (PMB) become law. To this end, proponents of the “Aldous Bill”, not least the Waveney MP himself, have been busily promoting its merits within the industry and rallying support among politicians ahead of it being debated by MPs at the second reading.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2018
‘A circuit judge was wrong to deny a claimant recovery of £20,000 in credit hire charges because she had been assured that she would never have to pay any outstanding sums herself, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A dog trainer to the royals has won a High Court battle with a disgruntled customer after a judge ruled she was “not dealing with a machine, but a puppy”.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th May 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘PAUL NICHOLLS QC, MATRIX Case Comments: It is often very difficult in cases involving breaches of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information to recover damages. It can be hard to prove loss. Employees may adduce evidence to show, for example, that customers would have ceased to deal with the claimant employer as a result of the mere fact of the employee’s departure such that the employee’s breach of a non-solicitation covenant has not caused loss. In cases about misuse of confidential information, the employee may be able to show that information wrongly removed could easily have been obtained from legitimate sources such that no loss flows from the misuse.’
UK Supreme Court Blog, 24th April 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Recently, in the course of reviewing a proposed building contract for an employer, I had cause to consider how responsibility for obtaining planning consents had been addressed. Or rather, whether it had been addressed at all. Jean-François Clin v Walter Lilly & Co Ltd is a forceful reminder to effectively deal with this issue. The Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of an express term to the contrary, a term was implied into the parties’ contract requiring the employer to obtain planning permission for redevelopment of the property and, generally, making the employer responsible for obtaining necessary consents.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 11th April 2018
© Inner Temple Library 2025