A Restrictive Interpretation? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted March 5th, 2021 in appeals, chambers articles, contracts, covenants, news, restraint of trade by sally

‘Andrew Butler QC assesses the recent Court of Appeal decision in Quantum Actuarial LLP v Quantum Advisory Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 227, in which he appeared for the Appellant. The case concerned covenants in restraint of trade, arising in an unusual context.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Briton jailed over plot to pay bribes for Iraq oil contract – The Guardian

Posted March 2nd, 2021 in bribery, conspiracy, contracts, news, sentencing by sally

‘A British businessman has been jailed for three and a half years after being convicted of conspiring to pay huge backhanders in one of the world’s biggest bribery scandals.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 1st March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Effect of Foreign Jurisdiction Clauses on the Summary Enforcement of UK Adjudication Awards in Construction Contracts – 39 Essex Chambers

‘In the very interesting case of Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli SPA [2021] EWHC 356 (TCC), handed down on 22 February 2021 Judge Hodge QC determined:

“the apparently novel question whether the inclusion within a construction contracts for works in England of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court precludes the English court from entertaining proceedings for breach of the term implied by paragraph 23 of the Scheme [i.e. the Scheme for Construction Contracts] that the decision of an adjudicator binds the parties until the final determination of the dispute”.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 24th February 2021

Source: www.39essex.com

Case Comment: R (Good Law Project & Others) v Secretary of State for Health AND Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) – Late Publication of Coronavirus Contracts Unlawful – 39 Essex Chambers

‘Last Friday Chamberlain J handed down judgment in a challenge concerning the government’s compliance with procurement law and its own transparency guidance in the awarding of goods and services contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. By reg. 50 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was obliged to send for publication a contract award notice (“CAN”) not later than 30 days after the award of a contract. By its transparency policy and principles it was obliged to publish details of any contract.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 23rd February 2021

Source: www.39essex.com

Judgment in Good Law Project JR on publication of Covid-19 procurement notices – Monckton Chambers

‘This is the first in a series of procurement law judicial review (JR) cases relating to Covid-19 brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) to have reached the judgment stage. The case concerned the (non)publication of contract award notices (CANs) within 30 days under regulation 50 Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR) and of other contract notices and materials within 20 or 90 days under relevant transparency policies.’

Full Story

Monckton Chambers, 19th February 2021

Source: www.monckton.com

Contract interpretation – who has commercial common sense? – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted February 23rd, 2021 in construction industry, contracts, interpretation, news by tracey

‘The dust is slowly settling over the arguments about how contracts should be interpreted. We know that “this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause” and that “[t]extualism and contextualism are not conflicting paradigms in a battle for exclusive occupation of the field of contractual interpretation” (as stated by Lord Hodge in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd). That means the factual background (matrix of fact) and commercial common sense still have a role to play where the plain meaning of the words is not clear (which is usually the reason why there is a dispute in the first place).’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 23rd February 2021

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

M/T Prestige litigation and arbitration: key takeaways – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 18th, 2021 in arbitration, contracts, injunctions, news, state immunity by sally

‘The latest two decisions arising out of the aftermath of the Prestige oil spill in 2002 have shed some light on three major areas of the English law of arbitration. The Commercial Court’s two decisions in London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain ([2020] (EWHC 1582) and The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain [2020] (EWHC 1920) provide an insightful analysis into the scope of the so-called “conditional benefit” principle, the powers of an arbitrator to grant injunctive relief and the court’s interpretation of the arbitration exception in the Brussels Recast Regulation.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th February 2021

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Procurement—withdrawal of challenged award decision ends automatic suspension (Aquila Heywood Ltd v Local Pensions Partnership) – Henderson Chambers

Posted February 11th, 2021 in chambers articles, contracts, news, public procurement, regulations by sally

‘Local Pensions Partnership Administration Ltd (LPPA) awarded a contract under a framework. Acquila Heywood Ltd (Acquila) issued proceedings challenging the award on various bases. LPPA then withdrew the award decision and replaced it with a second decision in which Acquila was again unsuccessful. Acquila did not issue proceedings in respect of the second decision or amend its existing claim. The court held that the automatic suspension which arose under regulation 95 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 only prevented LPPA from awarding the contract pursuant to the first decision. Once that decision had been withdrawn and the bids re-evaluated, it served no further purpose. LLPA was therefore not required to refrain from entering into a contract pursuant to its second decision. LPPA’s application to lift the suspension pursuant to PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 96(1)(a) was unnecessary.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 9th February 2021

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Astra-Zeneca v EU – the vaccine row explained in straightforward terms – The 36 Group

Posted February 11th, 2021 in chambers articles, contracts, coronavirus, EC law, medicines, news by sally

‘On 1 February, AstraZeneca told the EU that it would deliver around 50% of the 80 million COVID-19 vaccine doses that it had previously told the EU for the first quarter of 2021.’

Full Story

The 36 Group, 10th February 2021

Source: 36group.co.uk

Court of Appeal: Expert was not under “fiduciary duty” to client – Litigation Futures

Posted January 14th, 2021 in conflict of interest, contracts, expert witnesses, fiduciary duty, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the first decision in England and Wales to hold that an expert witness owed a fiduciary duty to their client.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th January 2021

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

LEI does not have to fund appeals during “unmeritorious claims” – Litigation Futures

‘Legal expenses insurance (LEI) does not have to fund interlocutory appeals that are likely to succeed as part of claims that overall are predicted to fail, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 5th January 2021

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Law Commission seeks views on smart contracts – Law Commission

Posted December 17th, 2020 in computer programs, contracts, Law Commission, press releases by tracey

‘The Law Commission has today [17 December 2020] launched a call for evidence to help ensure that the technology of smart contracts can thrive in England and Wales.’

Full press release

Law Comission, 17th December 2020

Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk

Be good, for goodness’ sake: fraud and adjudication enforcement – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘Christmas is on the horizon. It’s necessary, therefore, to ask who’s been naughty and who’s been nice – and how better to do that than by reflecting on the courts’ approach to fraud in adjudications?’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 9th December 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

The law applicable to an arbitration agreement: Part 1 of our analysis of Enka v OOO Insurance – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In the eagerly awaited judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court finally settled an important issue in the law of arbitration that has long divided the authorities and commentary: in the absence of a choice by the parties, where the law applicable to the main contract differs from that of the seat, it is the law of the seat that governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. Our Overview on the decision sets out the key holdings; Part I (below) of our commentary on the decision examines the reasoning of the Majority in greater depth.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

The cart before the horse when requesting an adjudicator: Land End Developments Construction Limited v Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited [2020] EWHC 2338 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘These proceedings related to an adjudicator’s decision dated 27th April 2020 (“the 27th April Decision”) under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 as amended (“the Scheme”). Lane End Developments Construction Limited (“Lane End”) was the main contractor on a housing development (“the Development”) and Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited (“Kingstone”) was sub-contracted to carry out enabling works for the Development. On 2nd March 2020, Kingstone issued Interim Payment Application No. 17 in the sum of £356,439.19, but Lane End did not serve a Pay Less Notice nor, until 26th March, did it serve a Payment Notice.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th November 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Judge wrong to find ‘subject to contract’ compromise binding – Litigation Futures

Posted November 23rd, 2020 in appeals, contracts, judges, loans, news, solicitors by sally

‘A judge was wrong to rule that solicitors had reached a binding compromise on a piece of litigation, when their correspondence had expressly been “subject to contract”, the Court of Appeal has decided.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 23rd November 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

What is the meaning of “good will”? The Court of Appeal continue the debate – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In Primus International Holding Company & Ors v Triumph Controls – UK Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1228, the Court of Appeal grappled with the proper interpretation of “goodwill” in a commercial contract, considering the natural meaning of “goodwill” in the commercial context and the definition prevalent in accounting practice. The case provides a useful reminder of the approach taken by the courts when construing contracts, highlighting the need for parties to spell out clearly their intended meaning of a term in their contractual agreement if they wish to depart from its ordinary and natural meaning.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Comparethemarket fined £17.9m by competition watchdog – The Guardian

Posted November 19th, 2020 in compensation, contracts, fines, insurance, internet, news by sally

‘The competition watchdog has imposed a £17.9m fine on price comparison site Comparethemarket.com after it found that clauses in its contracts with home insurers broke competition law.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th November 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

A note of caution for sports agents, introducers and intermediaries: beware the implied “effective cause” term – 2 Hare Court

Posted November 17th, 2020 in agency, contracts, interpretation, news, sport by sally

‘The recent decision of the High Court in Winlink Marketing Limited v Liverpool Football Club [2020] EWHC 2271 may have long lasting consequences for agents and intermediaries in facilitating and introducing parties to high-value sponsorship deals.’

Full Story

2 Hare Court, 2nd November 2020

Source: www.2harecourt.com

FCA v Arch and Others [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm): COVID-19 business interruption insurance – 12 King’s Bench Walk

Posted November 17th, 2020 in causation, contracts, coronavirus, financial regulation, indemnities, insurance, news by sally

‘The coronavirus pandemic has led to ongoing widespread business disruption and closures with a second national lockdown commencing this week. As such, certainty over whether business can bring claims under their business interruption (“BI”) insurance policies could not be more important.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 2nd November 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk