In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another (Appellants) v Financial Services Authority (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 13th February 2013
Category: contracts
LSC drops legal aid contract changes – Law Society’s Gazette
“The Legal Services Commission has agreed to drop controversial changes to ongoing legal aid contracts following talks with the Law Society.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 11th February 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and others v Valero Energy Ltd (Pannone & Partners (a firm), Part 20 defendant) – WLR Daily
“An option in an agreement which, if taken up, would lead to a tenancy was not ‘an agreement for a tenancy’ for the purposes of section 28(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Also, conditions precedent to the grant of lease were not covenants that were part of the agreement for a tenancy nor were they comprised within landlord and tenant covenants for the purposes of section 28. Therefore, in neither case did the burden of the obligation undertaken by the vendor transfer to the purchaser by virtue of the 1995 Act.”
WLR Daily, February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc – WLR Daily
Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] WLR (D) 19
“In construing a contractual provision, where there had been an unforeseeable and fundamental change in the legal context since the execution of the contract, the proper approach was to adopt a meaning which best gave effect to the parties’ original intentions and purposes. Where, therefore, a deed executed in 1997 provided for payment to be made by a banking group to a charitable foundation by reference to the group’s pre-tax profit or loss shown in the audited accounts, and a change in accounting practice subsequently required the group consolidated income statement to include, as a profit, a sum representing an unrealised gain on acquisition, the inclusion of such a sum was to be ignored for the purposes of calculating the amount payable to the foundation under the deed.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson – WLR Daily
Swift (trading as A Swift Move) v Robertson: [2012] EWCA Civ 1794; [2013] WLR (D) 11
“Where a contract between a consumer and a trader for the supply of goods or services was made during a visit to the consumer’s home the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 applied, irrespective of whether there had been earlier negotiations between the parties at the consumer’s home.”
WLR Daily, 15th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Judge rejects claim couple were ‘ruined’ by Barclays – Daily Telegraph
“A millionaire property developer and his wife who claimed they were brought to complete ruination by a simple banking error have lost their High Court claim for more than £3 million in damages.”
Daily Telegraph, 15th January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Government consults on extending producers and performers’ rights in sound recordings – OUT-LAW.com
“The Government is consulting on new laws which would extend producers’ and performers’ rights in sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th January 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Hackney Empire Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd – WLR Daily
Hackney Empire Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1716; [2013] WLR (D) 2
“The rule in Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495, permitting the discharge of a surety’s liability under a guarantee, only applied where the parties to the principal contract guaranteed had varied the terms of that contract without the surety’s consent.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd and another – WLR Daily
Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd and another [2012] EWHC 3537 (Comm); [2012] WLR (D) 391
“Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 implied a term into a memorandum of agreement for the sale of a vessel sold ‘as she was’ that the goods would be of satisfactory quality.”
WLR Daily, 13th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Brown-Quinn and another v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd and another – WLR Daily
“A legal expenses insurer could seek to limit the level of costs and expenses payable under an insurance policy in respect of a solicitor’s services for which it was liable to the insured provided that the freedom to choose a lawyer guaranteed by Council Directive 87/344/EEC, as transposed into English law by regulation 6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, was not rendered meaningless.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno and others – WLR Daily
Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno and others (Joined Cases C-182/11 and C-183/11); [2012] WLR (D) 356
“The condition established by the case law of the Court of Justice European Union (Teckal Srl v Comune di Viano (Case C-107/98) [1999] ECR I-8121 and Parking Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen (Case C-485/03) [2005] ECR I-8585) to the effect that, in order to be exempted from their obligation to initiate a public tendering procedure and instead to make an in-house award of a contract to a jointly owned municipal company, public authorities had to jointly exercise over that entity control similar to the control they exercised over their own departments, was fulfilled where each of those authorities not only held capital in that entity, but also played a role in its managing bodies.”
WLR Daily, 29th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Certain Limited Partners in Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) v Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (a firm) and others – WLR Daily
“A derivative claim brought by limited partners in a partnership, in the partnership’s name, against the partnership’s manager was permitted where there were special circumstances to justify such a claim.”
WLR Daily, 16th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Yeates and another v Line and another – WLR Daily
Yeates and another v Line and another [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 319
“An oral compromise agreement was not void by virtue of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 merely because it had a disposing effect. The compromise agreement was not an agreement for ‘the sale or other disposition of an interest in land’ within the meaning of section 2(1), so that despite being oral it was a valid contract.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
When is a Land Contract not a Land Contract? s2 LPMPA 1989 in Practice – Hardwicke Chambers
“It is a more or less universal rule that all reforms which are intended to simplify the law have unintended consequences. Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 came into force on 27th September 1989 – 23 years later, lawyers are still arguing about what contracts it does and does not affect, most recently in Keay v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 900.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd October 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
