Practical Law

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

Time and again in practice one finds that simple procedural points are undecided. You look everywhere for the answer thinking, how can it be possible that there is no guidance about this? Such was the situation in Agents Mutual Limited v Moginnie James Limited, a decision of Master Matthews, where the vexing question was whether … Continue reading Agents Mutual Ltd v Moginnie James Ltd: amending an issued application notice →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

The Lehman v Exxonmobil (EMFS) case recently decided by Blair J in the Commercial Court has many interesting nuggets relating to the valuation of securities for the purposes of the calculation of loss. In the case itself, these arose out of the failure of Lehmans to honour repo agreements, but are also of more general … Continue reading Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and Exxonmobil Financial Services BV: reasonableness v rationality in exercise of contractual discretion →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

In Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd, Arnold J considered the court’s jurisdiction to grant a domestic anti-suit injunction in circumstances where there is no contractual bar to a claim, such as an arbitration clause or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of another jurisdiction; in other words, quite unusual … Continue reading Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics v Abbvie Biotechnology Limited: anti-suit injunctions where no contractual bar to a claim exists →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

For lawyers interested in the long standing debate about the role (what role?) of good faith in commercial contracts, Monde Petroleum provides some guidance.

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

“Clients, I know, want two inconsistent things. They want confident advice on which they can act, and they want cautionary advice about the risks of doing so. It is a solicitor’s unhappy lot to have to try to satisfy both requirements simultaneously”. So said Sedley LJ in Queen Elizabeth’s School Blackburn v Banks Wilson Solicitors.

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

CPR 39.3 provides that the court can make final and effective orders in the absence of a party to the proceedings. There is no obligation on a party to attend a civil trial. Where a party is represented, their absence may not have any effect at all on the outcome of a hearing. Where the … Continue reading Is Pickard v Roberts a harsh application of CPR 39.3? →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

It is not often that an appeal raises a question of whether counsel exceeded his or her instructions. In Atkins v Co-Operative Group, Supperstone J was invited to substitute an order entering judgment on breach of duty, with causation and quantum to be assessed, for the one made by a master at a telephone CMC, … Continue reading Atkins v Co-Operative Group: fresh evidence allowed on appeal →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

Keown v Nahoor is a decision demonstrating the impact of the different burdens of proof applicable to different causes of action.

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers was an appeal by Withers against the measure of damages awarded to a former client in an action for professional negligence. Wellesley cross-appealed on the measure of damages and against a finding that Withers had not been negligent regarding a related matter. There were essentially two questions for the Court … Continue reading Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers: measure of damages in concurrent claims in contract and tort and application of the loss of chance principle →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

In Tidewater Marine International Inc v Phoenixtide Offshore Nigeria Ltd, the second and third respondents (the chairman and managing director of Phoenixtide) sought to use the funds in a Swiss bank account to pay their legal expenses. The bank account was subject to an attachment order from the Swiss court, in support of a standard … Continue reading Tidewater v Phoenixtide: a very robust exercise of discretion in a case riddled with falsehoods on the part of the respondents →

• by Catherine Newman KC
• Barrister

Parties who have engaged inquiry agents or investigators often resist disclosure of the names of their sources. Rio Tinto PLC v Vale SA makes it clear that whether or not the court orders disclosure is not a matter of applying a hard and fast rule, but depends on a number of factors.