REUTERS | Thomas Peter

The decision

In Dorchester Group Ltd t/a Dorchester Collection v Kier Construction Ltd, the defendant’s solicitors made an open offer to the claimant in the form of a letter (the letter), which stated (inter alia):

“In full and final settlement of the Proceedings we set out herein [the Defendant’s] open offer and the terms that relate to it.

For the purposes of the Proceedings only, and without making any admissions of liability save as set out below, [the Defendant] accepts that [the Claimant] is entitled to the following declarations…”

At the hearing, the claimant argued that the letter contained an admission and that the claimant was therefore entitled to judgment because the defendant “now concede[s] that it is liable to account for” the sums at issue in the case. Continue reading

REUTERS | Sergio Moraes

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 form of worldwide freezing order made in the English Commercial Court. The freezing order included an exception permitting the respondents to spend “a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation. But before spending any money the respondent must tell the Applicant’s legal representatives where the money is to come from”. The attachment order in the Swiss court contained no such exception. Continue reading