‘The recent decision in Mott vs Trant suggests the courts are unwilling to overrule clauses that exclude or limit liability, writes Sir Robert Akenhead, with assistance from David Johnson.’
Atkin Chambers, 4th August 2021
Source: www.atkinchambers.com
‘In an important case for package travel claims, the Supreme Court has clarified that a broad approach should be taken to determining the scope of the services provided under a package holiday contract. The tour operator is liable for the performance of ancillary services which are necessary to provide a holiday of the required standard.’
Devereux Chambers, 3rd August 2021
Source: www.devereuxchambers.co.uk
‘Or should that be, when is a collateral warranty not a construction contract? July was a busy month for TCC judgments, which makes the job of writing these blogs considerably easier. In addition to the fascinating judicial review cases being brought by the Good Law Project, one case that caught my eye was Timberbrook Ltd v Grant Leisure Group Ltd because it concerned the construction of a new orangutan enclosure at Blackpool Zoo. However, it is quite a detailed, merits-based judgment and, in the end, I plumped for the only TCC judgment (at least of those on BAILII) that concerned adjudication, Toppan Holdings Ltd and Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Simply Construct (UK) LLP.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 3rd August 2021
‘A British woman who was sexually assaulted by a hotel worker on a package holiday has won her Supreme Court appeal, in a judgment of “major importance to the travel industry”.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th July 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court unanimously allowed this appeal concerning whether a hotel employee working for the respondent was in breach of contract after having raped and assaulted the defendant, and/or gave rise to liability under the Contract and the Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (“the Regulations”).’
UKSC Blog, 30th July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The following case analysis, produced by Mathias Cheung, in partnership with LexisNexis, discusses the recent Supreme Court judgment in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 (16 July 2021).’
Atkin Chambers, 26th July 2021
Source: www.atkinchambers.com
‘At the start of the first lockdown in March 2020, both the government and the courts made efforts to provide ‘breathing space’ for companies and stem the tide of legal action flowing out of Covid-19’s disruption to business.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th July 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning whether a non-compete clause, by which one law firm agreed with another law firm not to take part in the emissions litigation without the latter’s permission, is enforceable or not.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A non-compete undertaking given by one law firm to another ahead of them working together was reasonable and not a restraint of trade, the Supreme Court ruled today.’
Legal Futures, 23rd July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Colin Ricciardiello provides a case law update examining cases that have examined the overlap between a requirement to procure and a contract for the disposal of an interest in land.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th July 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It has been quite some time since I have blogged about expert determination. In fact, the last time was six years ago when I wrote about the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Begum v Hossain, which concerned the valuation of shares in an Indian restaurant. That was before the term “Brexit” had been coined and most of us were happily oblivious to the meaning of the word “furlough”. Therefore, Jefford J’s recent judgment in Maypole Dock v Catalyst Housing Ltd, which concerned an interim injunction to restrain the pursuit of an expert determination, caught my eye.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 6th July 2021
‘Adjudication has now become the default dispute resolution method for construction disputes, to the extent that some parties use it on multiple occasions and for multiple disputes. But that carries its own risks and complexities, as highlighted in the recent decision in Prater Ltd v John Sisk and Son (Holdings) Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 29th June 2021
‘Last month, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd. While the case does not change the law, it provides a helpful outline as to the approach to be taken to interpreting alleged inconsistencies between bespoke terms and the terms of standard forms within a given contract. The case will be of general interest to practitioners, in particular those whose practice incorporates construction or shipping work, where standard forms are commonplace.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 24th June 2021
‘Harry Dyson discusses what appears to be the first judgment at Circuit Judge level in relation to what monies can be retained or claimed by wedding venues when the contract has been frustrated by Covid-19 regulations. Harry has been exposed to this issue whilst working as a paralegal prior to commencing pupillage. He gained experience in dealing with both these claims and issues surrounding venues’ business interruption insurance.’
Park Square Barristers, 15th June 2021
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
Establishing an individual’s employment rights can feel like a minefield, with varying degrees of obligations on the employer depending on the employment status. Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal that Uber drivers are “workers” of Uber for the purposes of employment rights, and not, as Uber argued, self-employed contractors each operating their own minicab business.
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘Does a professional such as a solicitor, architect or pensions adviser have a duty to revisit their work and to correct a mistake they’ve made earlier? This is an important question for any professional and can be particularly significant when a client alleges that work done many years ago was negligent.’
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘The Court of Appeal has just handed down its decision in Britvic PLC v Britvic Pensions [2021] EWCA CIV 867, overturning the first instance High Court decision. It is a major decision on interpretation (applying principles applicable to contracts and other documents, and not just pension schemes). This note focuses on the interpretation issue of general application; a second note will touch on the pensions-specific aspects.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 11th June 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘A claimant who receives a defence is not required to take any further step in relation to the statements of case. It can consider the pleadings closed and seek to move on to directions, disclosure, evidence and ultimately trial. Nevertheless, sometimes the claimant will want to react to or deal with the allegations made in the defence.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 9th June 2021
‘Beware the pitfalls of bringing a claim at the last possible opportunity, and the prohibition against pleading new causes of action in the Reply to Defence … Martlett Homes Limited v. Mulalley & Co. Limited [2021] EWHC 296 (TCC).’
Mills & Reeve, 8th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘Preparing and sending contractual notices always makes me nervous. There are so many things to get wrong: is it in time, where should I send it, who to, how should I send it? Not to mention the actual content of the notice. For those of you like me, the recent case of Transport for Greater Manchester v Kier Construction Ltd shows that we are right to worry about these things. Notices are important, and getting them wrong has serious consequences.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 2nd June 2021
© Inner Temple Library 2023