‘The FCA’s long-awaited anti-greenwashing rule came into force on 31 May 2024. This rule is part of the wider Sustainability Disclosure Requirements regime and reflects the FCA’s strong commitment to ESG and to supporting the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.’
Criminal Law Blog, 14th June 2024
Source: www.kingsleynapley.co.uk
‘In Gupta & Ors v Shah & Ors [2024] EWHC 1189 (Ch), the High Court considered whether to debar four defendants from defending an unlawful means conspiracy claim and to summarily award the Claimants $14m.’
Henderson Chambers, 20th May 2024
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘In Northamber PLC v Genee World Ltd & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 428, the Court of Appeal considered the costs consequences for parties who remain silent in the face of an offer to mediate. What the High Court described as a “half-hearted attempt” the Court of Appeal has rebranded a “clear offer to mediate”. On costs, the Judge erred in failing to consider: (i) that the defendants’ silence constituted unreasonable conduct, and (ii) breaches of a previous order requiring any party not engaging in ADR offered by the other side to serve a witness statement setting out reasons for the refusal.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 30th May 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘The Defendant owns the former County Hall opposite the Houses of Parliament on the South Bank. Until March 2019, the Claimant, the well-known “quick service” restaurant chain, ran a restaurant from part of the ground floor and basement of the building pursuant to a lease which had the protection of the 1954 Act. The restaurant was one of the Claimants highest profile sites. At the end of the contractual term, the Defendant landlord served a notice pursuit to section 25 indicating that it would oppose the grant of any new tenancy on the “own occupation” ground in section 30(1)(g). That lead to proceedings in the County Court at Central London in late 2018. The Defendant called two witnesses who attested that the landlord intended to run its own restaurant from the premises serving Japanese food under the trading name “Zen Bento”. It produced a business plan to that effect. The landlord’s principal offered an undertaking to that effect. Despite extensive cross-examination of the landlord’s witnesses, the County Court Judge accepted the landlord’s case, and indeed its undertaking, that it had a firm and settled intention to open a “Zen Bento” restaurant and made an order terminating the tenancy in March 2019. However, the landlord failed to open a restaurant at the site when it said it was going to (by November 2019). It opened a restaurant on the ground floor in March 2020 and, having opened the same restaurant briefly in September 2020 and closed it due to COVID restrictions, it opened a different restaurant, a coffee shop and bakery, in the basement in early 2021. The former tenants sued the Defendant in deceit and for damages under section 37A of the 1954 Act. The landlord accepted that the restaurants which it had in fact opened (and which were still trading) were different from the one it had told the County Court it intended to open and that there had been a delay in opening them but said it had genuinely changed its mind as to what it wanted to do and that the delay was largely down to COVID restrictions.’
Landmark Chambers, 13th May 2024
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘The essence of public administration, good or otherwise, is the exercise of public power. Decision-makers who are vested with statutory and common law powers to be exercised strictly in the public interest must actually exercise those powers if they are to fulfil their roles. As to how those powers are exercised, in the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, like most other contemporary representative democracies, elected politicians pursue policies which may become law through Parliament’s enactment of legislation or may be adopted by the Executive as policy to shape the exercise of statutory powers in practice.’
Landmark Chambers, 28th May 2024
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘The Independent Review into disclosure and fraud offences promised as part of the government’s May 2023 Fraud Strategy has now published its preliminary findings in the disclosure aspect of the investigation.’
Mountford Chambers, 29th May 2024
Source: www.mountfordchambers.com
‘The High Court (Mrs Justice Dias) has handed down its first judgment concerning the Disguised Remuneration Repayment Scheme 2020 (DRRS), and in particular the proper interpretation of the requirement for “reasonable disclosure”. The Claimant, Sensor Solutions Ltd, challenged a decision of HMRC not to make payments to the Claimant under the DRRS.’
Devereux Chambers, 15th May 2024
Source: www.devereuxchambers.co.uk
‘In Black Horse Limited v Andrew Curtis (Bristol CC, 21 February 2024), HHJ Railton heard an appeal in relation to a novel point under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act).’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd May 2024
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘The claimant (C) was a severely disabled young man who had never worked and was never going to. He sought to challenge Birmingham’s policy of recovering the maximum amount of the cost of his care even though a greater proportion of his income was recovered compared to an individual who required care but could work.’
Landmark Chambers, 10th May 2024
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘In Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1092 (KB) Master Gidden has provided guidance on the proper approach to the growing problem of the potential conduct of litigation by unauthorised persons who, online and on social media. encourage unrepresented litigants to bring claims based on wholly misguided arguments, resulting in litigants having their claims struck out and incurring a liability in costs.’
Henderson Chambers, 16th May 2024
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘We know and are familiar with the mischiefs the BSA seeks to address. We now know too how the FTT is likely to approach applications for remediation orders under s.123.’
Falcon Chambers, 28th May 2024
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘In a brokers’ negligence claim, when is causation decided on the balance of probabilities and when is a loss of a chance analysis appropriate? Alice Nash considers this question in the light of a recent decision of Picken J in the context of a claim for failure to obtain insurance cover, where he said the loss of a chance approach should arguably prevail.’
Henderson Chambers, 14th May 2024
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘This article examines whether the FTT’s recent decision in the Vista Tower case (CAM/26UH/HYI/2022/004, available on the FTT’s web-site) demonstrates a discernible pattern of decision-making following its first remediation order. The article will not comment on the terms of the order made in Vista Tower: that will be the subject of a later article. Instead, it will focus on the FTT’s approach to case management and whether its decision to make a remediation order was consistent with the reasoning in previous decisions. Obviously, consistency in approach, both in terms of case management and the final decision, will enable practitioners in this developing area of work to advise clients with greater certainty. In the absence of an appeal decision on remediation orders, consonance in first instance decisions will be welcome.’
Tanfield Chambers, 16th May 2024
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Prior to the coming into force of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“the BSA 2022”), local authorities already had the ability to take enforcement action in respect of residential premises where there was a hazard in relation to fire by virtue of Part I, Chapter I of the Housing Act 2004 (“the HA 2004”). Now, local authorities are among a class of interested persons who may apply for remediation orders under section 123 of the BSA 2022. What does a comparison of the two remedies say about how the First-Tier Tribunal should exercise their discretion in respect of remediation orders?’
Falcon Chambers, 13th May 2024
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Earlier this year, Butcher J handed down the judgment of the Commercial Court in the extraordinary case of Contax Partners Inc BVI v Kuwait Finance House and Ors [2024] EWHC 436 (Comm), ultimately putting to bed an attempt by fraudsters to purloin over £70 million from a banking group associated with the Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund. What made this attempted fraud particularly noteworthy was that its central mechanism was an abuse of the processes of the court used to enforce arbitral awards.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 7th May 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘Clauses requiring written notice of a warranty or other claim to be given by a specified deadline are a common feature of share purchase and other sale agreements. Often they are followed by a requirement that any claim be commenced within a further specified period of the giving of any notice of claim.’
Guildhall Chambers, 23rd May 2024
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘In this case, the claimants brought a claim arising from a RTA in May 2017.
Liability was in issue. The claimants alleged the defendant driver had driven his van into their car; whereas the defendant driver alleged that the claimant driver drove from a parked position into the side of his van. The defence pleaded that the claimants’ credibility and honesty would be challenged at trial.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th May 2024
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This case was recently approved following a joint settlement meeting where the terms of settlement were that the Claimant (C), a protected party, was to be compensated by the payment of the lump sum of £4.5 million. The date of accident was in 2005. C met with her accident as the infant back seat passenger restrained in a child seat, when a car driven by her father was involved in a collision with a lorry. C’s father was severely brain injured in the accident. C at the time was only 15 months old, she was born in 2004, she is now 20 years old. Proceedings were issued in March 2013.’
Exchange Chambers, 31st May 2024
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘It was only a few months ago that the Upper Tribunal handed down the decision in Kay v Cunningham [2023] UKUT 251 (LC). In that case (in which the writer appeared for the successful applicant) the Tribunal established a number of novel points in relation to modification and discharge of restrictive covenants under s.84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (see the Brew on this here). On 8 May 2024, a differently constituted panel gave a decision in Medley v Mackenzie and others [2024] UKUT 112 (LC), which provides further guidance as to the Upper Tribunal’s approach to the discretion stage in s.84 applications.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 28th May 2024
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
‘Last month, the Sentencing Council made changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. In particular, there were substantial modifications to the “Mitigating Factors” to be considered by sentencers. This article hopes to provide a digest of some significant alterations and question how they may work in practice.’
Guildhall Chambers, 29th May 2024
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025