D was engaged to carry out engineering works at a water treatment plant. C was a specialist engineering contractor sub-contracted by D to carry out some directional drilling work. C claimed that it had been delayed and disrupted in it works and that it was entitled to compensation under the sub-contract. However, no formal contract had been signed and a ‘battle of the forms’ argument arose. Whilst the case turns largely on its own facts, Akenhead J’s judgment reiterates that th ...
|
C was engaged to provide scaffolding at a property which D was developing. This engagement gave rise to disputes which were referred to adjudication and in which C was successful in obtaining an award for the payment of certain sums from D. A jurisdictional issue arose as to whether there was a contract in writing for the purposes of section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and whether D had made a clear and full reservation in respect of the adjudicator’s j ...
|
The judge had been entitled to conclude that the negligent dispensing of the wrong contraceptive pill had not caused or materially contributed to the contraceptive failure and subsequent pregnancy of the Claimant. The case was not one in which the exception to the “but for” test identified in Fairchild v Glenhaven Services and Barker v Corus could be extended even if applicable because there had been no finding of additional risk.
|
An endorsement which provided that a products liability extension to a Public Liability policy did not provide an indemnity in respect of any claim arising out of “the failure of any fire or intruder alarm switchgear control panel or machinery to perform its intended function” was to be construed disjunctively. The absence of commas separating the fire or intruder alarm and the subsequent words was inconclusive. While there clause was capable of being read in more than one way, ...
|
Where the parties had agreed in negotiations that a particular warranty should be included in a reinsurance policy and through oversight it had been omitted in the final version of the slip sent for agreement by reinsurers, an e-mail from reinsurers in response which in accepting the slip referred to previous negotiations was an acceptance on the terms of the slip and was not a counter-offer. The issue of whether the contract could be rectified did not fall for consideration.
|
The CA dismissed a Wife's appeal against the dismissal of her application by summons , for an order setting aside ancillary relief orders which had been made in her favour in 2001. The original orders had been made, inter alia, on the basis of protecting the Wife from potential liabilities then thought to be in the region of 14 million pounds to a charity and to the Inland Revenue. The liabilities subsequently were established to be £600,000. The CA held that despite the Husband's undeserve ...
|
The CA considered the vexed question of reviewable dispositions under s37 MCA 1973. Holding that in the instant case a charge over a property to a bank by subsequent purchasers was not a reviewable disposition notwithstanding the Wife's registration of her matrimonial home rights under the FLA 1996.
|
F had been transferred from detention to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 on the day that he would otherwise have been released. In a judicial review challenge to the warrant of transfer, the judge found that the warrant was unlawful because the medical opinions on which it had been based did not deal with an essential precondition for detention in hospital, the treatability of the psychopathic disorder from which he was said to be suffering. However, on the basis that judicial review r ...
|
Loss of Limitation Defence Not a Head of Prejudice under Section 33 of the Limitation Act. The Court of Appeal held that the loss of a limitation defence was not to be regarded as a head of prejudice to the Defendant when the Court was exercising its discretion to disapply the time limit for the commencement of proceedings under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. It was established law that, where a tortfeasor had no substantive defence on liability, the accrual of a limitation defe ...
|
The Claimants sought to recover their wasted costs expenditure in their unsuccessful attempt to acquire Leicester City Football Club. The Claimants’ case was that they had retained the Defendants on the basis of assurances from one of its partners that it would be able to obtain funding and provide the relevant legal services to achieve that goal. The complaint was that no effective steps had been made to progress the funding or bid and expenditure was wasted. The claim was not issu ...
|
| 1 |