Novasen (N) entered into a contract for the sale of a cargo of oils with Sogescol (S), on FOSFA terms and including a FOSFA arbitration clause. N failed to deliver the oil. Alimenta (A) claimed to be the undisclosed principal of S and thus entitled to enforce the contract. A commenced arbitration proceedings against N. The arbitrators found that there was a contractual relationship between A and N.N appealed asserting want of jurisdiction. N argued (amongst other things) that the arbitrators did ...
|
A vessel was chartered by owners (O) to charterers (C). Shortly before the start of a particular fixture C cancelled the relevant fixture note because the intended cargo was unavailable at the loading port due to political unrest. O accepted C's cancellation as a repudiatory breach and indicated that they would be searching for alternative employment for the vessel.As it was unable to find an alternative fixture before the end of the trip, O claimed damages for the hire it would have earned on t ...
|
Where insurers imposed a risk improvement measure on the terms of cover this had a material and potentially deleterious effect on the insured and the insurance brokers were under a duty to draw it the assured’s attention and obtain their instructions in relation to it.
|
Solicitors should make enquiries in to a person’s mental capacity to contract only where circumstances were such as to raise a doubt in the mind of a reasonably competent practitioner. There was no general duty to obtain medical evidence on every occasions upon which they were instructed by an elderly client just in case they lacked capacity.
|
Where lawyers had mistakenly advised a bank that the Norwegian municipalities with whom it was to enter swap agreements could do so within their powers and that mistake had been wrong leaving the bank with no contractual claim, the lawyers were not liable for damages because the bank had a claim in restitution and its inability to recover from the municipalities arose from a credit risk which was outside the lawyers’ scope of duty.
|
A failure to recognise the development of mycoplasma pneumonia in a child by two successive general practitioners had caused the child loss. Had she been diagnosed earlier her referral to hospital would have meant that she received the care needed and the circumstances leading to irreversible brain damage would have been reduced or avoided. There had been a further breach by the hospital staff in failing to act with appropriate expedition, however it could not be proved that that had caused or m ...
|
Obstetrician Not Negligent In Failing To Continue Or Carry Out Further Cardiotocograph
Slade J DBE dismissed the claimant’s claim against the defendant for the alleged clinical negligence of one of its obstetricians in not continuing or repeating a cardiotocograph scan on her mother when she was pregnant with the claimant. Slade J DBE accepted that the defendant had acted negligently in forming the view that the trace from the scan was satisfactory. Whilst the scan should have been repeated or continued, Slade J DBE held that the claimant had not established that such continuance ...
|
Duty Of Care Owed By Nightclub In Respect Of Actions Of Third Parties On Premises But Standard Of Care Must Be Just, Fair And Reasonable
The Court of Appeal held that relationship between the management of a nightclub and its guests is sufficiently proximate to justify the imposition of a duty of care, as the risk of one guest assaulting another was foreseeable. Whilst there was accordingly a duty of care owed by management of the nightclub for the actions of third parties on its premises, the scope and standard of that duty of care had to be just, fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal held that as between ...
|
An application to amend a Defence to a claim in malicious falsehood to plead that the words complained of were comment that an honest person could have made on the basis of certain facts was refused. A comment could still be malicious if the publisher did not hold the stated opinion, even if an honest person could have had such an opinion.
|
A publication only to the Claimant’s solicitor was struck out as an abuse of process under the principles set out in Jameel v Dow Jones: no vindication or injunction could properly be sought that would justify the court time necessary to try the claim.
|
| 1 |