- December 28, 2017
The proper boundaries of Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(20)(a): Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others
In Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others, the court held that Practice Direction (PD) 6B paragraph 3.1(20)(a) was to be interpreted narrowly. A claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 did not fall within it simply because it was made pursuant to an enactment. The court stated it would … Continue reading The proper boundaries of Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(20)(a): Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others →
- June 16, 2017
Contractual interpretation: the role of contra proferentem and other principles
It seems as if there has recently been a glut of upper court decisions on contractual interpretation. In Persimmon Homes Limited v Ove Arup & Partners Limited the principle of contra proferentem and the guidelines in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King came under scrutiny.
- March 31, 2016
Arbitration, litigation and the growth of the common law
In the recent BAILII Lecture 2016 the Lord Chief Justice (LCJ) called for a rebalancing of the relationship between arbitration and the courts. The LCJ’S primary concern was that the present turning which the law had taken in 1979 and the Nema Guidelines, largely embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), had stunted the … Continue reading Arbitration, litigation and the growth of the common law →