A, the appellant shipowner, (Golden Strait), appealed against a decision that it was not entitled to damages measured by reference to the full term of a time charter that had been repudiated by R, the respondent charterer (Nippon). R would have been entitled, by virtue of the war clause, to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the war in Iraq, had the charter still been running. The issue concerned the circumstances in which, where damages for an accepted repudiation are claimed, a party in bre ...
|
A, the appellants (Ritchie), had purchased farming equipment from R, the respondents (Lloyd), which turned out to be defective. R repaired the goods but refused to disclose the nature of the defect to A. A appealed against a decision of the Extra Division of the Court of Session that it had not been entitled to reject the equipment. The issue concerned the effect of s.35(6)(a) Sale of Goods Act 1979 on the buyer’s right to reject goods which, on delivery, materially disconform to the contract. A ...
|
The issue concerned whether an injunction should be granted against a person bound by an arbitration agreement to restrain him from commencing or prosecuting proceedings in breach of the agreement in a court of another Member State that had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/1001. A, the appellant insurers (RAS) appealed against a decision which granted an injunction restraining them from proceeding with an action that they had commenced against R, the respondent shipowner (West Tankers) in Italy. ...
|
The House of Lords considered the question of whether a bank, notified by a third party of a freezing injunction granted to the third party against one of the bank's customers, affecting an account held by the customer with the bank, owes a duty to the third party to take reasonable care to comply with the terms of the injunction. Held: the bank did not owe such a duty of care. It was not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty in all the circumstances of the case.
|
The House of Lords considered the question of whether a letter containing an acknowledgement of a debt was inadmissible for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, on the ground that the letter formed part of a negotiation with a view to the creditor giving the debtor time to pay or accepting a lesser amount. Held: the letter was admissible as proof of acknowledgment of a debt, notwithstanding that it was sent on a ‘without prejudice’ basis.
|
High Court proceedings claiming that the provisions of United Kingdom tax legislation restricting group relief to companies resident or carrying on an economic activity in the UK were incompatible with Community law were stayed in the case of companies which had made or could still make a claim for group relief since in such cases the tax appeal commissioners had exclusive statutory jurisdiction.
|
(1) A charge over present and future book debts, where the chargor was required to collect and place those debts in a designated account with the chargee bank, but the chargor was free to draw on the account for its business purposes provided the overdraft limit was not exceeded, was in law a floating charge even if it was expressed as being a fixed charge. (2) The unrestricted use by the chargor of the proceeds in the account was inconsistent with a fixed charge since it allowed the debt and ...
|
Where a consignment of vodka was released by a taxpayer company from its bonded warehouse under an excise duty suspension arrangement and was subsequently fraudulently diverted, the company was liable to duty in respect of it.
|
In default of an indication to the contrary, the parties to a commercial agreement were supposed to have intended that changes to indexes to measure price increases would be made in accordance with the normal commercial practice of index-linking.
|
| 1 |