‘Clauses in commercial contracts preventing variation other than in writing are “in principle” unenforceable, given that parties to such contracts generally have the freedom to agree to vary whatever terms they choose, according to three senior judges.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A defendant cannot withdraw an admission of liability because the value of a claim has increased, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 19th May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The supply of “bunkers” of marine fuel on credit for immediate use was not governed by the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, leaving the shipping company in debt to the bank which has taken over the liabilities of the insolvent bunker supplier, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The duty to warn arises as no more than an aspect of the duty to act with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent professional. The existence of the duty recognises that in some circumstances the professional must go beyond what is specified as the desired performance in a contract (e.g. carrying out a design) and account for any risks of which he is aware by virtue of that expertise and warn others who may not be so aware.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Vinergy International (PVT) Ltd v Richmond Mercantile Ltd FZC [2016] EWHC 525 (Comm), Teare J held that the notice requirements contained in the termination provisions of a master supply agreement (the MSA) did not apply to an innocent party’s exercise of its common law right to terminate the agreement by accepting the other party’s repudiatory breach.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the Court of Appeal provides a “helpful summary” of the circumstances in which employment terms set out in separate documents should be considered incorporated into employee’s contracts, according to an employment law expert.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th Aoril 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)
‘The claimant and the first defendant were husband and wife and the joint freehold owners of a house, where they lived. On 24 March the claimant and the first defendant executed a transfer of the title to the house to the claimant alone, for no stated consideration. On 27 March the claimant executed a deed of settlement whereby he settled the house on the terms of that deed and appointed himself and the first defendant as trustees of the settlement. The claimant also executed a transfer of the title to the house to himself and the first defendant as the trustees of the settlement. The principal beneficiaries of the settlement were the claimant, the first defendant, their children and remoter issue. Although the transactions were entered into in order to obtain certain tax advantages, in fact, as a consequence of a change in the law, they gave rise to a substantial tax liability. The claimant and first defendant brought a claim for an order setting aside the transfer of 24 March and the settlement and transfer of 27 March. In issue in the proceedings, to which the revenue was joined as a second defendant, was whether the transactions were governed by common law rules for declaring a contract to be void by reason of mistake or the equitable rules for setting aside a gift for mistake.’
WLR Daily, 11th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The conveyancers on both sides of a property fraud have been found jointly liable for the £470,000 loss suffered by the buyer.’
Legal Futures, 18th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘G4S has been fined at least 100 times for breaching its contracts to run prisons since 2010, according to data obtained by Labour.’
The Guardian, 15th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A High Court judge was wrong to override an exclusion clause in a complex contract for the hire of an offshore drilling rig, as the parties were commercial equals and the wording of the clause was sufficiently clear, the appeal court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that had protected law firms from financial risk through restricting the way professional indemnity insurers could aggregate multiple claims.’
Legal Futures, 14th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘With both the US and London mayoral elections gaining momentum, and leading commentators poised to offer independent research, enlivened views and sage analysis, you really would be forgiven for not having had your eyes trained on recent enforcement action in the TCC.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In English law there is a presumption in favour of freedom of contract. The penalty rule represents an exception to that principle. A properly drafted liquidated damages clause entitles the claimant to recover the amount stipulated in the clause even if the actual loss is less than the amount payable. The inclusion of the clause is intended to provide certainty, to make the recovery of damages easier and less costly and, from the opposite perspective, to limit liability.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th April 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘On 1 October 2015 the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) came into force. CRA superseded the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). The CRA aims to modernise, simplify and consolidate key parts of consumer law; it is the cornerstone of an extensive consumer law reform programme. Anyone acting in a landlord and tenant dispute or drafting tenancy or lease agreement needs to be familiar with its provisions’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Today’s banks are in receipt of the largest fines ever imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), or its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and although they are taking responsibility for a number of failings (eg PPI, Derivatives, LIBOR and FOREX), restrictions on recovering loss, in particular where consequential loss is concerned, have come under significant scrutiny. This article examines the measure of loss in tort and contract, and particularly explores investors’ difficulties when making claims for loss of profit caused by mis selling.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 31st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has ordered global firm King & Wood Mallesons to pay damages over negligent advice it gave to a commodities business intelligence firm – although they were only 5% of the sum claimed.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A second legal challenge has been made over the government’s decision to impose a new contract on junior doctors in England.’
BBC News, 4th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘It can be a common misconception that where services have been offered without charge then there will be no liability in the event that something goes wrong. This point was addressed in the recent case of Burgess and another v Lejonvarn [2016] EWHC 40 (TCC) and serves as a warning to all professionals offering free advice.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘This Q&A deals with user clauses in commercial leases. What is permitted by a covenant permitting use solely as a laundrette? Does such a clause permit the provision of dry-cleaning services?’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024