contracts – Page 28 – Current Awareness

The New Stomping Ground: Validity of Payment Applications – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 24th, 2016 in construction industry, contracts, enforcement, news, time limits by sally

‘Since the consequences of failing to serve a valid and timely payment notice or pay less notice can be severe (see ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College1), it perhaps should come as no surprise that in recent cases, there has been increasing attention on the validity of the application for payment because, without this, there can be no “notified sum” due to the contractor and, therefore, no requirement to serve a payment or pay less notice.’

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 1855 (TCC) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 23rd, 2016 in construction industry, contracts, news, notification, remuneration by sally

‘The TCC determined that an ambiguous set of accounts sent by email were not a valid application for interim payment, with the result that the corresponding payless notice had been issued in time. The case serves as a reminder to contractors that the substantial benefits of the HGCRA payment provisions come with the clear obligation to make the nature and content of any application for interim payment obvious to an employer, or else the courts will likely find such an application to be invalid.’

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd [2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC) (14 August 2015) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 23rd, 2016 in construction industry, contracts, news, notification, remuneration by sally

‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim application for payment made by a contractor was valid where it was ambiguous which payment date the application had been made for. Akenhead J determined that this ambiguity would be construed against the contractor and in favour of the employer, with the result that the contractor could not reap the benefit of his own valuations becoming the sum due without having made absolutely clear to the employer the nature and purpose of each application.’

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Let’s call it quits: Cruise ships, capital losses and mitigation – Commercial Disputes Blog

Posted February 22nd, 2016 in appeals, arbitration, charterparties, contracts, damages, news, ships by sally

‘In its recent judgment in Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama –v- Globalia Business Travel SAU the Court of Appeal 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. In some ways, the question of principle which was being considered is remarkably simple, but that belies the complexity of the considerations needed to resolve it. ‘

Commercial Disputes Blog, 17th February 2016

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

Further shots fired in the long-running battle between credit hire companies and insurers… Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 8th, 2016 in appeals, consumer credit, contracts, damages, insurance, news by tracey

‘Credit hire litigation is rife with technical arguments which have been accused of being “layers of artificiality” (by Judge Mackie in W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB), [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 667).’

Zenith PI Blog, 8th February 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Court of Appeal slashes award in law firm sale dispute – Legal Futures

Posted January 29th, 2016 in appeals, contracts, damages, economic loss, law firms, misrepresentation, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has reduced by almost two-thirds the balance awarded to the seller of a law firm by the High Court, after ruling that – among other things – the trial judge had been wrong not to award the buyer damages for misrepresentation of the firm’s finances.’

Legal Futures, 29th January 2016

Source: wwww.legalfutures.co.uk

High Court upholds Pensions Regulator’s approach to auto-enrolment of peripatetic workers – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 18th, 2016 in contracts, employment, judicial review, news, pensions by tracey

‘The eligibility of peripatetic workers for automatic enrolment onto workplace pension schemes in Great Britain depends on where the worker is based and not on what is set out in the worker’s contract, the High Court has said.’

OUT-LAW.com, 15th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Innovative start-ups and the importance of getting the paperwork right – Technology Law Update

Posted January 15th, 2016 in assignment, contracts, law firms, negligence, news, patents by sally

‘A dispute over an unsuccessful start-up turns messy, but clears up a point of confusion over patent assignments.’

Technology Law Update, 14th January 2016

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

Court of Appeal permits early redemption of Lloyds Banking Group’s Enhanced Capital Notes – Commercial Disputes Blog

Posted January 13th, 2016 in appeals, banking, contracts, financial regulation, interpretation, news, time limits by sally

‘In BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital No.1 and No. 2 Plc, the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision of the High Court, by allowing early redemption of certain convertible securities (known as Enhanced Capital Notes, or ECNs).’

Commercial Disputes Blog, 4th January 2016

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

Cavendish win on penalties: Supreme Court makes finger-tip save of ageing doctrine – RPC Built Environment

Posted January 13th, 2016 in contracts, damages, news, parking, penalties by sally

‘The Supreme Court has provided long awaited clarification of the law on penalty clauses and liquidated damages, upholding the “penalty rule” but further limiting its utility in a commercial setting. In the adjoined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis the Supreme Court created a new authority for consideration of the penalty rule doctrine, termed by Lordships Neuberger and Sumption to be “an ancient, haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well”.’

RPC Built Environment, 6th January 2016

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

No relief from the Supreme Court – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted January 13th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, contracts, disclosure, freezing injunctions, news, sanctions, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has held in Thevarajah v Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 that:
(1) a party who failed to obtain relief from sanctions for non compliance with an order
cannot make a second application for relief without demonstrating a material change
in circumstances; and
(2) belated compliance with an order does not, of itself, constitute a material change
in circumstances.’

Radcliffe Chambers, 7th January 2016

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Appeal court: profits from sale of ship should be treated as mitigation of loss from breach of contract – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 8th, 2016 in causation, charterparties, contracts, economic loss, news, shipping law by tracey

‘A High Court judge “overcomplicated matters” by attempting to develop a set of principles governing whether the innocent party to a breach of contract should have its award of damages reduced to reflect a benefit it obtained from that breach of contract, an expert has said.’

OUT-LAW.com, 8th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Organisations should learn lessons on outsourcing from BT Cornwall case, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 7th, 2016 in contracting out, contracts, drafting, injunctions, local government, news, telecommunications by sally

‘Both customers and suppliers can learn lessons on outsourcing from a recent dispute ruled on by the High Court in London.’

OUT-LAW.com, 7th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Supreme Court: no “material change” means no second application for relief from sanctions – Litigation Futures

Posted December 18th, 2015 in civil procedure rules, contracts, disclosure, freezing injunctions, news, sanctions, Supreme Court by tracey

‘Litigants are not entitled to make a second application for relief from sanctions unless there has been a “material change in circumstances”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Ramburs Inc v Agrifert SA – WLR Daily

Posted December 9th, 2015 in appeals, arbitration, contracts, interpretation, law reports, sale of goods by sally

Ramburs Inc v Agrifert SA [2015] EWHC 3548 (Comm); [2015] WLR (D) 505

‘Where a buyer of goods FOB nominated a substitute vessel pursuant to its right under the GAFTA FOB period of delivery clause appearing in GAFTA form 49, he was nevertheless required to comply with the terms of the contract of sale as to nomination and pre-advice in respect of the nomination of the substitute vessel.’

WLR Daily, 4th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Good Faith Clauses in Development Agreements – Tanfield Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in contracts, interpretation, news, sale of land, standards, statutory duty by sally

‘In recent years it has become increasingly common for parties to a development agreement to agree to act towards one another with “good faith”. The meaning and extent of the obligations on the contracting parties imposed by such clauses is often difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this paper is to consider a number of cases in which good faith clauses, implied and express, are discussed and identify the general principles that apply to development agreements.’

Tanfield Chambers, 30th November 2015

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Penalty Clauses – New Square Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in contracts, news, penalties by sally

‘On 4 November 2015 the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in relation to penalty clauses in a contract – Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, a judgment of 124 pages before a panel of seven Justices. This was the first time that this Court or the House of Lords had considered such an issue for a century. Some commentators describe this judgment as, in effect, a complete re-writing of the relevant law. Others may call it merely a change, albeit an important change, of emphasis.’

New Square Chambers, 1st December 2015

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Wellesley v Withers: A significant change in the analysis of remoteness of damage – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in causation, contracts, drafting, limited liability partnerships, negligence, news by sally

‘In Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 the Court of Appeal made an important change to the law of causation. From now onwards, the contractual approach causation shall apply instead of the tortious principles of remoteness in cases of concurrent liability. The effect of this case will be to materially change causation analyses in professional negligence matters, albeit the conclusion (as demonstrated in the Wellesley case itself) through the two analytical frameworks may well be identical.’

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

When does the clock start ticking? Limitation and the Privy Council case of Maharaj v Johnson – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in contracts, limitations, negligence, news, Privy Council by sally

‘The majority of claims against professionals are framed in contract, the tort of negligence, or a combination of both. As readers of this article will be aware, the Limitation Act 1980 provides the same limitation period for both causes of action: “six years from the date on which the case of action arose.” But readers will also know that those periods frequently begin (and more importantly end) on different dates. This is because a breach of contract is actionable per se, i.e. without the need to prove damage, where as a claim in negligence requires proof of damage, which will often occur some time after the breach of duty, which is said to have caused it. For this reason many claims which are out of time for a claim in contract, are nevertheless in time for a claim in the tort of negligence.’

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

A return to orthodoxy in matters of contractual interpretation – New Square Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in contracts, drafting, interpretation, news by sally

‘In its decision in Arnold v Britton [2015] 2 WLR 1593 the Supreme Court has restored the supremacy of the traditional approach to the construction of commercial contracts.’

New Square Chambers, 1st December 2015

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

«
1
…
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
…
50
»

Categories

Archives