‘A High Court judge’s decisions in a multi-million pound dispute between a council and a waste company are helpful in understanding the Court’s approach to duties of good faith – and the consequences of making allegations of bad faith without sufficient evidence, write Judith Hopper and Rory Budworth.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The main issue was how to determine the governing law of an arbitration agreement when the law applicable to the contract containing it was not the law of the seat of the arbitration.’
Littleton Chambers, 9th October 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘A conservative US evangelical organisation is taking legal action against UK entertainment venues that cancelled appearances by Franklin Graham, a preacher who has expressed homophobic and Islamophobic views, earlier this year.’
The Guardian, 27th October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A large academy school trust faces litigation from a firm that lost out in the award of an IT contract.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A man who was refused a payout of £1.7m after his online betting company account was credited with the money is taking his case to the High Court.’
BBC News, 16th October 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, in what may be the first summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a party in administration, we have successfully represented the claimant in Styles and Wood Ltd (in administration) (S&W) v GE CIF Trustees Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st October 2020
‘Historically, cohabitation agreements, sometimes known as “no-Nups”, were frowned upon as they were seen to encourage sexual relations outside of marriage. Thankfully, times have moved on and that’s no longer the case. The general view is that such agreements are enforceable if they deal with cohabitees’ property and affairs, and provided they are entered into freely with full information. Often, disputes between cohabitees following separation relate to what was or wasn’t intended, for example, in relation to the property in which they live. Having a clear record of the cohabitees’ intentions in a cohabitation agreement can avoid expensive disputes about those issues.’
Family Law, 30th September 2020
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Question: What do the Oslo Picasso murals “The Seagull” and the “The Fishermen” and the Dutch De View Jaargetijden have in common? Answer: They both have been subject to recent high cost, high profile litigation that dragged on for years and which concerned moral rights.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 9th September 2020
‘This was the question the court was asked to answer in RSK Environmental Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 26th August 2020
‘This case acts as a reminder of the hierarchy to seeking a remedy in construction contracts. The right to legal proceedings in construction contracts is more fundamental than the payment provisions. The payment provisions are superior to the adjudication provisions. However, a party will still have to honour judgment debts in related proceedings.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th August 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Firstly, it should be made clear that force majeure is a clause which allows a party or parties to an agreement to avoid performing it in some way. However, that is dependent on certain events as specified within the agreement occurring.’
St Ives Chambers, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘In a preliminary issue trial, the court considered the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) relating to standing to bring a claim. The claimant’s case was that the council had unlawfully amended and extended an existing contract instead of conducting a full public procurement exercise and that, had such an exercise been run, it would have assembled a consortium to bid for the contract and might have won it. In a lengthy judgment, His Honour Judge Russen QC hammered home the fact that a potential challenger has to establish on the balance of probabilities that it has a ‘material interest’ in the procurement in order to bring a claim under PCR 2015. It is not sufficient, in order to meet the requirements of PCR 2015, reg 91, for a claimant to say that it has established only a more than fanciful case that it has, through noncompliance with the regulations, lost a more than fanciful opportunity. Community R4C Ltd v Gloucestershire County Council [2020] EWHC 1803 (TCC).’
Henderson Chambers, 5th August 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The High Court found that there was no duty of good faith or duty to act reasonably in respect of an option to withdraw engines from a maintenance agreement. The judgment provides a helpful discussion of the case law concerning the principles of contractual interpretation and implied terms (including on the basis of the Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank London line of cases and relational contracts). The judgment also serves as a reminder to practitioners that evidence of statements made in precontractual negotiations, including mutual understanding (subject to limited exceptions) are generally inadmissible to assist with the interpretation of a concluded contract. Written by Rebecca Farrell, counsel, at 3 Paper Buildings.’
3PB, July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Complex commercial arrangements can generate difficulties for the parties where their obligations are set out in a multitude of related contracts or a single contract containing inconsistent dispute resolution clauses. It is not uncommon for parties to complex commercial contracts to find themselves arguing over the interpretation of inconsistent jurisdiction clauses which are either found in a single contract, or different but related contracts forming part of the same arrangements. Disagreements over the interpretation of jurisdiction clauses can arise in large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, and other types of arrangements where transactions usually take place under a master agreement. This note will explore the most common scenarios in which courts are often asked to interpret inconsistent dispute resolution clauses, with particular focus on the ‘centre of gravity’ approach adopted by courts.’
3PB, 27th July 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Much has been written on the Supreme Court case of Bresco v Lonsdale and it has most recently been relied on by a party in the adjudication enforcement case of WRW Construction Ltd v Datblygau Davies Developments Ltd. However, as will be discussed in this blog, it was of limited assistance.’
Practical Law Construction Blog, 28th July 2020
‘The normal rule for breach of contract is that losses are assessed as at the date of breach (The Golden Victory [2007] 2 AC 353.) However, this has never been an immutable rule, and the law in this area was significantly recast in the case of W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company [2018] EWCA Civ 2640.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 29th June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 27 April 2020 the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) published Breathing Space – a Concept Note on the effect of the pandemic on commercial contracts. The central thesis is that to mitigate the damaging effects of COVID-19 on the global economy, private law should encourage compromise and mediation rather than a zero-sum rush to terminate contracts and then to litigation and arbitration.
3 Hare Court, 29th June 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘Adjudication is a quick and comparatively cheap method of dispute resolution and for those reasons is attractive to insolvent companies seeking to recover debts. However, a respondent was likely to be able to restrain the insolvent company from referring the matter to adjudication on the basis that it would be futile to do so, since any positive decision was unlikely to be enforced as a result of the very fact of the company’s insolvency. Therefore, any award lacked practical utility. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale, that is no longer the case.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th June 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 7 May 2020, the Cabinet Office issued guidance urging “responsible and fair performance and enforcement of contracts” during the Coronavirus pandemic. This guidance, which does not have legislative force, has caused some head-scratching amongst lawyers. Judges have traditionally been reluctant to muddy the waters of contract law (often murky enough as it is) with vague and subjective notions such as responsibility and fairness. The usual approach is – in simple terms – to hold the parties to the words they have used, imply only such other words as are necessary to make the contract work, and let the rest take care of itself. So what does the Cabinet Office guidance mean, and how, if at all, can the concept of “Responsible Contractual Behaviour” (“RCB”) be shoehorned into the existing law?’
Tanfield Chambers, 24th June 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025