‘A county council has won an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal over a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office that it was not entitled to redact certain information in a variation agreement to a waste disposal contract.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th April 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Rochdale BH is a social housing provider (of what was the council’s housing stock). The issue in this case – heard as a preliminary issue – was whether Rochdale BH was a water reseller under the terms of The Water Resale Order 2006 in that charges for water it made as a part of the rent.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In the recent case of Global Asset Capital Inc and another v Aabar Block S.A.R.L and others [2017] EWCA Civ 37, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was wrong to find that following a ‘subject to contract’ offer letter, a contract was concluded during a telephone call which was inconsistent with subsequent communications.’
4 KBW, 31st March 2017
Source: www.4kbw.net
‘The correct interpretation of a contract in England and Wales will depend on a range of factors, including the words of the contract and the context in which they are used, according to the UK’s highest court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Two of the private companies that provide 50% of probation services in England and Wales have confirmed to MPs they will have to consider quitting if a Ministry of Justice review fails to deliver improvements.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The decision of the High Court in Microsoft Mobile Oy (Ltd) v Sony offers some helpful guidance as to when a competition law tort claim will be caught by an arbitration clause in a sale or supply agreement.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 7th March 2017
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘An after-the-event insurer (ATE) has escaped liability to pay out £320,000 after the High Court found that its insured had breached four conditions precedent in the policy.’
Litigation Futures, 7th March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘And indeed never authorised the co-purchaser to enter into a contract on her behalf without her consent, did not know that he was entering into a contract, or consent to his doing so on her behalf. That was the remarkable situation in the case of Rabiu v. Marlbray Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 5147. At first blush one might have thought, in line with the decision in Suleman v. Shahsavari [1998] 1 WLR 1181, that in the absence of the signature of one of the co-purchasers, there was no binding contract and that that would be the end of the matter. So the trial judge concluded, but the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of the case the purchaser who had signed had rendered himself liable as between himself and the vendor of the property, notwithstanding the absence of the signature of his co-purchaser. In so doing it distinguished Suleman. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which runs to 111 paragraphs, considers a number of issues and repays careful study. This casenote will consider the questions of the validity of the contract between the vendor and the copurchaser and the formalities required by s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. A second casenote (to follow) will consider whether, on the assumption that there was no valid contract as between the vendor and the co-purchaser (either because the contract had not been signed by the other co-purchaser, or because of want of the formalities required by s.2), the vendor was required to return the co-purchaser’s deposit or could retain it.’
Radcliffe Chambers, February 2017
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘When I first started to move from the research to active case work in respect of timeshare litigation last year, I found that the Opinions which I had to write were extremely long and extremely challenging. In fact, the first two written Opinions exceeded 14,000 words each. If nothing else, the recent long awaited decision in Abbott v RCI Europe (“Abbott”) confirmed that I had not been guilty of narcissistic prolixity.’
Full story (PDF)
Park Square Barristers, 11th January 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Commercial litigators regularly encounter disputes which arise from parties’ attempts to renegotiate obligations under written agreements in situations where one party is having difficulty performing as required under the contract.’
Littleton Chambers, 26th January 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘As with many insurance policies, the Respondent’s policy with the Appellant insurance company contained a condition precedent requiring the insured to notify its insurer “as soon as possible after the occurrence of any event likely to give rise to a claim”. The Appellant withdrew indemnity to the Respondent in respect of a claim, contending that such condition precedent had not been met.’
Park Square Barristers, 23rd January 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘Judgment in the case of Kersfield Developments (Bridge Road) Ltd v Bray & Slaughter Ltd, handed down on 19 January 2017, is a new authority in the line of case law providing guidance on the provisions governing interim payments in Construction Contracts in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended (“the Act”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Changes to the Joint Construction Tribunal (JCT) standard form ‘design and build’ contract introduce new uncertainties for contractors around loss and expense claims, an expert has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th January 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This was Leeds’ second appeal of a Valuation Tribunal decision on council tax liability. We covered the first High Court appeal here. Full disclosure, I acted for the intervener in this second appeal, the Residential Landlords Association, with Justin Bates (or as it turns out, Bate) as counsel.’
Nearly Legal, 8th December 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Claimant had purchased a new build property which had been constructed by the First Defendant company. Slightly over a year later the Claimant tripped over a paved step in her garden which rendered her tetraplegic. The other Defendants to the claim were the directors of the First Defendant and the contractor who had been engaged to lay the paving in the garden.’
Zenith PI Blog, 30th November 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Andrew Burns QC & Ishaani Shrivastava examine the implication & construction of contract terms following Marks & Spencer.’
New Law Journal, 25th November 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘A recent High Court decision will provide helpful guidance to parties that elect to use statistical sampling and extrapolation as a means to demonstrate entitlement to substantial damages.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘I have been asked to talk this afternoon about breach of contract, specifically what strategies can be adopted in the event that one party fails to complete under the terms of the contract. What are the options for escaping the contract or, alternatively, for forcing the other party to complete?
Falcon Chambers, September 2016
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Alexander Nissen QC’s recent decision in Spartafield Ltd v Penten Group Ltd brings a degree of finality to the long-running dispute between these two parties. It comes after multiple adjudications and previous proceedings in the TCC. Back in March, my colleague Ebony Alleyne discussed what was then the most recent judgment, dealing with the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
McGill v Sports and Entertainment Media Group and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1063
‘The claimant, a licensed football agent, brought proceedings against a football player seeking damages for breach of contract, claiming that he had negotiated a transfer deal for the player under an oral contract, but that another agent, having induced the player to breach his contract with the claimant, had made the deal with the new club itself and received the fee of £300,000, thereby depriving the claimant of his fee for the work which he had done. The claim was settled in 2009 with payment of £50,000 to the claimant in full and final settlement. In 2012 the claimant brought an action against the first to fourth defendants, being the agent which had allegedly induced the breach of contract and three individuals associated with it, and the fifth to ninth defendants, being the club to which the player had transferred and four individuals associated with it. The claim was for, inter alia, the torts of inducing a breach of contract, breach of confidence and unlawful means conspiracy. The judge found that all the ingredients of the causes of action for inducement of breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy were made out apart from causation and loss, and dismissed all the claims.’
WLR Daily, 12th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024