Terminating any relationship can be painful. For contractual parties, an incorrect or even careless termination may result in costly legal consequences. Two recent cases highlight the development around this body of law and serve as an aide-mémoire of the principles underpinning termination under English law: Bains v Arunvill Capital Ltd reminds parties committing remediable breaches, … Continue reading It’s not me, it’s you: terminating English law contracts
In Empyreal Energy Ltd v Daylighting Power Ltd, Stuart-Smith J held that an expert determination was null and void because the dispute had not properly been notified and referred under the contract.
Without notice applications carry with them a duty on the applicant to provide full and frank disclosure: that is, disclosure to the court of all objectively material facts, including those which it is anticipated would be raised by the other side if it were present (Konamaneni v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd). If the … Continue reading To be (full and) frank, take accusations of material non-disclosure seriously
In Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Harron Homes Ltd, the applicant (Taylor Wimpey) sought pre-action disclosure against the respondent (Harron Homes) under CPR 31.16.
In early May 2020, it was reported that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) intended to seek and obtain declaratory relief in order “to resolve contractual uncertainty in business interruption insurance cover” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim, according to the FCA, was to obtain an “authoritative declaratory judgment” that would “resolve some key … Continue reading Nothing to declare? Taking English declaratory relief overseas
As authorities take unprecedented measures to help control the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), working from home using online technologies has become an abrupt but necessary fact of life for many. Adaption to disruption is becoming the new normal and the UK courts are no exception.
“I take it that, as a general rule, one may say once privileged always privileged.” This principle, articulated by Sir Nathaniel Lindley MR in the 1898 decision in the case of Calcraft v Guest, is a fundamental aspect of privilege. It is based upon the principle that a client must be free to consult their … Continue reading Once privileged, always privileged… unless and until waived
In an era of ever-increasing complexity of commercial cases, in particular involving allegations of cross-border fraud, lengthy trials are on the rise. In recent years, one need only point to Berezovsky v Abramovich (16 weeks) and Libyan Investment Authority v Goldman Sacs International (seven weeks), as examples of the phenomenon for ultra-high value claims occupying … Continue reading Is “split” the difference for complex trials? A multi-billion dollar Danish tax fraud case prompts English courts to consider a split trial