The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has provided welcome clarification on the scope of the duty assumed by a professional adviser. The distinction between information and advice drawn by Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO) has been dispensed with in favour of a more practical examination of the purpose for which the advice was given. The UKSC also provided helpful guidance on the correct application of the SAAMCO counterfactual analysis.
Two recent High Court decisions have emphasised that the Part 36 costs consequences will rarely be avoided.
Nominal damages of £10 beat claimant’s offer of £1: full Part 36 consequences apply
In Shah and another v Shah and another, the High Court upheld the decision of the County Court that the defendants should bear the normal Part 36 consequences when the claimant had made a Part 36 offer of £1, which he beat as the trial judge awarded nominal damages of £10.
The Court of Appeal has recently clarified the circumstances in which the parties in court proceedings will be bound by the findings made in earlier UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) proceedings as a result of issue estoppel. The judgment in Thomas v Luv One Luv All Promotions Ltd and another considers the scope of issue estoppel and when the courts can disapply it on the basis of there being special circumstances.
The judgment also helpfully explores the ownership of goodwill by a partnership and what happens to the goodwill when the partnership is dissolved.
