High Court: third party funder entitled to terminate funding agreement and return of money held in escrow – OUT-LAW.com

Posted September 20th, 2013 in costs, news, third parties by sally

“A third party litigation funder was entitled to terminate a funding agreement when it reasonably believed that there was a less than 60% chance that the underlying court action would succeed, the High Court has ruled.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 20th September 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court backs litigation funder’s decision to terminate agreement – Litigation Futures

Posted September 16th, 2013 in costs, estoppel, news, solicitors, third parties by tracey

“The High Court has ruled that a third-party litigation funder was entitled to terminate its funding in a case where the prospects of success had fallen below 60%.”

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th September 2013

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Jacob Rowbottom: Third Party Spending Controls and the Lobbying Bill – UK Constitutional Law Group

Posted September 5th, 2013 in bills, elections, lobbying, news, third parties by sally

“The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill is proving to be controversial for various reasons – not least for proposing amendments to controls on third party spending during election campaigns (under the current law independent organisations have to register with the Electoral Commission if they spend over a certain amount on election material, and such spending is subject to an overall cap). Many of the criticisms have focused on the potential for the proposed law to apply to the political speech of charities, think tanks, blogs and campaign groups.”

Full story

UK Constitutional Law Group, 4th September 2013

Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org

Costs of Third Party Interveners in Regulatory Proceedings – Littleton Chambers

Posted September 3rd, 2013 in costs, health & safety, judicial review, news, third parties by sally

“The issue of the costs of third party interveners in judicial review proceedings was dealt with recently in the case of R (Peel Investments) v Health and Safety Executive [2013] EWHC 1012 (Admin), [2013] Env. L.R. D6. Peel involved a novel application of established principles on costs that will be of interest to all those advising commercial bodies in regulated industries in respect of intervening in judicial review proceedings.”

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 22nd August 2013

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

ATE providers and unions – authors of their own misfortune? – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted July 31st, 2013 in costs, insurance, legal aid, news, third parties, time limits, trade unions by sally

“We all know the gravy train is coming to an end. With the abolition of inter partes recovery of After the Event (ATE) premiums and equivalents, ATE providers and unions are scrambling to fill the void in their coffers this will create. Recently, there has been outrage at the suggestion that retrospective reform should be introduced to limit the recoverability of pre 1 April ATE premiums and equivalents, imposing a finite timescale. But is this really justified, or are the ATE providers and union funders bringing such measures on themselves by their disproportionate attitude to the quantum of premiums?”

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 30th July 2013

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Tchenguiz and another v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Deutsche Bank AG, third party); Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA and others v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Deutsche Bank AG, third party) – WLR Daily

Tchenguiz and another v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Deutsche Bank AG, third party); Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA and others v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Deutsche Bank AG, third party) [2013] EWHC 2128 (QB); [2013] WLR (D) 302

“The Criminal Justice Act 1987 did not prevent the Serious Fraud Office from disclosing, pursuant to a court order in civil proceedings, documents which in the course of an investigation had been provided to it by third parties in response to notices under section 2 of the Act.”

WLR Daily, 18th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Contributory negligence claims and the use of child passenger restraints by Stuart Young – Sovereign Chambers

“Parents who fail to secure their children in appropriate child passenger seats can be found to be contributory negligent for any injuries that may be suffered by the child as a result of a road traffic accident, as confirmed by the recent Court of Appeal case Williams v Estate of Dayne Joshua Williams 2013.”

Full story

Sovereign Chambers, 1st July 2013

Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC and others v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP and others – WLR Daily

Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC and others v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP and others [2013] EWCA Civ 367; [2013] WLR (D) 154

“Section 8(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable substantive right subject to a procedural condition on which the promisor might but need not insist. Section 8(2) of the Act allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable procedural right which the third party might but need not exercise, since the right was unilateral.”

WLR Daily, 17th April 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Interpreter company wins costs order appeal – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 26th, 2013 in appeals, costs, interpreters, news, third parties by sally

“The company contracted by the Ministry of Justice to provide court interpreters has won an appeal against a decision to award a third-party costs order after a sentencing hearing was adjourned due an interpreter’s non-appearance.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 26th March 2013

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) – WLR Daily

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] WLR (D) 90

“There was no general rule that the Financial Services Authority acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the obtaining of a freezing injunction under section 380(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and/or section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”

WLR Daily, 27th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regulators need not guarantee third party losses when freezing assets, Supreme Court confirms – OUT-LAW.com

“Bodies acting under a ‘public law duty’ do not need to cover losses incurred by third parties when they ‘freeze’ the assets of a company under investigation, the Supreme Court has confirmed.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 28th February 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

The Financial Services Authority (a company limited by guarantee) (Respondent) v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Respondents) and Barclays Bank plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court

The Financial Services Authority (a company limited by guarantee) (Respondent) v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Respondents) and Barclays Bank plc (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 11 | UKSC 2011/0244 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 27th February 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and others v Valero Energy Ltd (Pannone & Partners (a firm), Part 20 defendant) – WLR Daily

Posted February 7th, 2013 in contracts, enforcement, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, third parties by sally

Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and others v Valero Energy Ltd (Pannone & Partners (a firm), Part 20 defendant) [2013] EWHC 98 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 40

“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

Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 382

“The Pensions Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a scheme member to set aside a compromise agreement where successful determination of the complaint would adversely affect the rights of the parent company in circumstances where it was a necessary party to any claim to set aside the agreement but was not subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”

WLR Daily, 14th December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Drawing the Fault Line: Multiple Tortfeasors and Intervening Acts – Cloisters

Posted December 4th, 2012 in assault, causation, negligence, news, personal injuries, prosecutions, third parties by sally

“It is not uncommon for a potential personal injury or clinical negligence claimant to have been subjected to a series of events that may all be linked to causation of his injury – we’ve all met the unfortunate client for whom nothing seems to go right. Sometimes the events will be the acts of third parties, which
may or may not be tortious; at other times, the individual’s own actions may have played a part in the causation of his injuries. The third party acts may involve personal injury, or clinical negligence, or even assault. In such circumstances, there may be multiple potential defendants to any legal claim
and serious thought needs to be given to the question of whom to claim against, to avoid potential adverse costs consequences from bringing proceedings against the wrong, or too many, defendant(s) or – worse – failing to sue the tortfeasor ultimately found to be primarily or even solely responsible for the claimant’s losses.”

Full story (PDF)

Cloisters, November 2012

Source: www.cloisters.com

Voluntary code for third-party funders is “fit for purpose”, says author – OUT-LAW.com

Posted December 3rd, 2012 in codes of practice, news, third parties by sally

“A code of conduct for third-party litigation funders is “working well” one year on from its adoption and there are no plans to replace it with a system of mandatory regulation, according to one of its authors.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 3rd December 2012

Source: www.out-law.com

Norwich Pharmacal Relief – Panopticon

Posted November 28th, 2012 in confidentiality, disclosure, internet, news, proportionality, sport, third parties by sally

“If through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. Justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration. This is the principle recognized by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.”

Full story

Panopticon, 28th November 2012

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Online behavioural advertising transparency and opt out requirements to be set out in UK advertising rules – OUT-LAW.com

“Behavioural advertising networks will be subject to UK advertising rules from February next year, the advertising regulator has said.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 22nd November 2012

Source: www.out-law.com

Judicial Review by Third Parties – 11 KBW

Posted November 20th, 2012 in judicial review, news, public procurement, tenders, third parties by sally

Judicial Review by Third Parties (PDF)

11 KBW, 16th November 2012

Source: www.11kbw.com

SerVaas Inc v Rafidain Bank – WLR Daily

Posted August 31st, 2012 in debts, enforcement, international law, law reports, state immunity, third parties by tracey

SerVaas Inc v Rafidain Bank: [2012] UKSC 40;   [2012] WLR (D)  257

“Whether property was ‘for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of section 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not depend on the property’s origin but on the use to which the state had chosen to put it.”

WLR Daily, 17th August 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk