‘Complete removal of hope’: an inmate on life in a close supervision centre – The Guardian
‘Case study: Kevan Thakrar says the high suicide and self-harm rates in CSCs are no surprise.’
The Guardian, 26th July 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
Category: joint ventures
Chu v Lau [2020] UKPC 24: The Privy Council’s review of the law on just and equitable winding-up – Exchange Chambers
‘In its Judgment handed down on 12 October 2020, [[2020] UKPC 24], the Privy Council, comprised of Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows, provided a welcomed clarification of the law applicable to the just and equitable winding-up of a company; with a particular emphasis on the alternative rules which apply to those companies having the status of a quasi-partnership.’
Exchange Chambers, 16th October 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
OHL v Qatar Foundation and tribunal’s powers to correct awards and scope of permissible challenges – Atkin Chambers
‘Challenges were brought by a contractor (JV) under sections 67 and 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) in respect of an addendum award (the Addendum) issued by an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal. The Addendum was issued following an application by the employer to correct a fourth partial award. JV’s challenges were dismissed and the judge gave helpful guidance as to the scope of AA 1996, ss 67 and 68 and the scope of a tribunal’s power to correct and/or interpret its award. Written by Simon Lofthouse QC and Zulfikar Khayum, barristers, at Atkin Chambers, and counsel for Qatar Foundation.’
Atkin Chambers, 6th July 2020
Source: www.atkinchambers.com
Imposing Quistclose trusts—knowledge, not notice, as the golden rule (Goyal v Florence Care Ltd) – New Square Chambers
‘Goyal emphasises the importance of knowledge over notice in generating a Quistclose Trust. Solicitors and commercial fund managers should be alert to the possible implications arising from the allocation and management of communications received, mindful that attributed knowledge may still suffice in the right circumstances. Goyal provides an important reminder of the gateway function of an order for an account through which substantive remedies can be accessed. A party’s entitlement to an account following breach of fiduciary duty should not be circumscribed by judicial assumptions that little may be gained from the exercise, nor by considerations of the delay between relevant events and trial. An account may prove to be fruitless but a claimant should be entitled to find this out for themselves.’
New Square Chambers, 23rd March 2020
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Fraudulent Non-Disclosure Claim in Property Joint Venture Case Fails – Littleton Chambers
‘The claimant (Mr Russell) was one of four individuals involved in a joint venture property development business. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement which obliged them to act with good faith towards each other, in certain limited respects. Mr Russell departed the business pursuant to the terms of a settlement deed. Shortly after that deed was executed, the remaining parties entered into an attractive development project that Mr Russell claimed the other parties did not tell him about, or give him the opportunity to participate in. Mr Russell claimed he was wrongfully excluded by the dishonest actions of the other joint venturers. The claims alleged were: (a) breach of fiduciary duty; (b) breach of the express/implied terms of the joint venture agreement; (c) fraudulent non-disclosure; (d) unlawful means conspiracy. As a result of the terms of the settlement deed, Mr Russell needed to establish fraud or dishonesty to succeed.’
Littleton Chambers, 13th February 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Sharing the pain: considerations for joint venture participants – Practical Law: Construction Blog
‘Both contractors and developers often enter into joint ventures to carry out a specific project. It enables parties to bid on larger projects, pool their resources, including specialised knowledge, and spread risk across the participants. The recent decision in Doosan Enpure Ltd v Interserve Construction Ltd serves as a reminder to participants in construction joint ventures of the potential pitfalls of intra-JV disputes.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 13th November 2019
Joint authorship does not require writing contribution – OUT-LAW.com
‘Contributors of ideas for TV programmes, films or other creative works can be considered joint authors of those works even if they do not write the scripts, the Court of Appeal in London has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th October 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
How helpful is witness evidence anyway? The impact (or not) of evidence from a third party in loss of chance cases – Hardwicke Chambers
‘A solicitor makes a negligent error in a negotiation between a client and third party. The error leads the client to agree something different to the agreement the client had envisaged. What difference does the error make to the outcome and how should this translate into damages? Does the analysis change where the third party gives evidence and is adamant that the error made no difference to the outcome? These questions arose in Moda International Brands Ltd v Gateley LLP (1) & Gateley Plc (2). Against the background of the Commercial Court’s consultation on witness statements, this case offers an illustration of witnesses’ diminished role.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st June 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
Insufficient oversight and inadequate controls “allowed £2m fraud at joint venture” – Local Government Lawyer
‘Insufficient oversight by Barnet Council together with inadequate controls allowed a former member of staff to commit a £2m fraud at a joint venture, a report by auditors Grant Thornton has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th September 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
How to tell if your joint venture breaks competition law – OUT-LAW.com
‘Joint ventures can vary enormously in terms of their scope and nature and be pro-competitive and justified, but as businesses increasingly look to collaborate to innovate, the agreements are coming in for greater scrutiny from competition authorities.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
Opportunistic Conduct and Good Faith – the line that joint venturers may not cross – Hardwicke Chambers
‘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
The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union – WLR Daily
The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union (Case C-179/12P); [2013] WLR (D) 363
“For the purposes of establishing liability for participation in an infringement of article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty, where two parent companies each had a 50% shareholding in a joint venture company which had committed an infringement, and only in so far as the commission had demonstrated that both parent companies did in fact exercise decisive influence over the joint venture, those three entities could be considered to form a single economic unit and therefore form a single undertaking for the purposes of article 101FEU.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Board minutes of a public/private joint venture confidential and commercially sensitive – Panopticon
“Joint ventures between the public and private sectors are increasingly common. They are often a focus for vigorous political debate over issues such as the costs involved, the savings to the public purse, the profit to the private sector partner, and allegations of conflicts of interest. While those are political arguments on which Tribunals take no view, they do point to the significant public interests that are engaged when considering access to information. So said the Tribunal in David Orr v IC and Avon and Somerset Police Authority (EA/2012/0077), a recent decision notable for grappling with access to information about such a public/private joint venture.”
Panopticon, 11th October 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Steinberg heirs in high court battle with bookmaker Stanleybet – The Guardian
“The children of the late tycoon Lord Steinberg are fighting the rump of their father’s Stanley Leisure gambling empire in a multimillion-pound case at the high court in London.”
The Guardian, 10th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Competition Commission casts doubt on broadcasters’ online shop- OUT-LAW.com
“The Competition Commission has provisionally concluded that a proposed joint venture among the UK’s biggest broadcasters will restrict competition in the supply of video on-demand (VOD) services in the UK.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd December 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Competition Commission delays web TV investigation – OUT-LAW.com
“The Competition Commission (CC) has extended the deadline for its investigation into a joint venture between the UK’s main broadcasters into next year. It has said that it will not be able to complete its inquiry by the initial date of 14 December.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th August 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
Kangaroo referred to Competition Commission – The Guardian
“The Office of Fair Trading has today referred Kangaroo – the proposed video-on-demand joint venture between BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 – to the Competition Commission.”
The Guardian, 30th June 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
