June 2014
25/7/14
WALSH v NEEDLEMAN TREON [2014] EWHC 2554 (Ch)
A salaried partner was a mere employee and was not liable under s 14 Partnership Act 1890 on the footing of holding out.
27/6/14
RENAISSANCE CAPITAL LTD v AFRICAN MINERALS LTD [2014] EWHC 2004 (Comm)
Witness statements should relate concisely what the witness did or heard or observed. The trend to produce over lengthy and argumentative witness statements must stop. It is wasteful of costs and the court’s valuable time [202].
27/6/14
SUPERGROUP PLC v JUSTENOUGH SOFTWARE CORP INC [2014] EWHC (Comm)
No specific form has to be used to withdraw a Part 36 offer. Written notice stating that the offer is withdrawn is sufficient.
27/6/14
COMAU UK LTD v LOTUS LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES LTD [2014] EWHC (Comm)
On an application for summary judgment in respect of an alleged repudiatory breach of a contract for the supply of goods and services, the court held that, even if it had been minded to grant summary judgment, damages would have been nominal because the terms of the contract allowed the defendant to perform the contract in different ways, and included a right to terminate the contract subject to paying certain sums to the claimant. Damages were to be assessed on the basis of the defendant’s minimum contractual obligation so it had to be assumed that the defendant would have exercised its own right to terminate and the claimant would only have been entitled to damages for the profit as it might have made until such time as the defendant chose to exercise that right.
27/6/14
THE FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST v FEDERAL-MOGUL LTD [2014] EWHC 2002 (Comm)
A claimant cannot seek a declaration as to performance of a contract to which it was not a party and where the parties to the contract are not in dispute.
26/6/14
AMERICAN LEISURE GROUP LTD v GARRARD [2014] EWHC 2101 (Ch)
An extension of time for service of a claim form on the first defendant was refused as the claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within 4 months, as required by CPR r 7.6.
25/6/14
AKHTAR v BOLAND [2014] EWCA Civ 872
Where part of a claim had been admitted and the balance of the claim fell within the small claims track threshold, the judge had correctly allocated the claim to the small claims track.
24/6/14
SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS LTD v CONDEK HOLDINGS LTD [2014] EWHC 2016 (TCC)
A main contractor in a building project was insolvent and the client sought to bring claims in tort directly against a director of the main contractor and a third party consultant which had advised the main contractor. The claims were struck out because the claims were for pure economic loss and neither defendant owed the claimant a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss.
24/6/14
DEUTSCHE BANK AG v SEBASTIAN HOLDINGS INC [2014] EWHC 2073 (Comm)
A bank obtained money judgment and order for 85% of its costs in a claim against a company. When the company failed to pay, the bank obtained permission to serve a non-party costs application on the company’s sole director out of the jurisdiction. The director’s arguments that the United States was a more convenient forum failed. The director was a privy of the company so findings in the proceedings against the company were admissible and binding on him. A non-party costs order was made because he had controlled the conduct of the company’s defence which had relied on his evidence. His conduct had been reprehensible, involved impropriety and had caused the bank to incur costs. He was the "real party" to the dispute and could be assumed to have funded the litigation.
24/6/14
SHAW v MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH [2014] EWCA Civ 1678; [2015] PIQR P8
Although the claimant had made an offer to settle her claim for less than she was awarded at trial, the offer had not been a Part 36 Offer principally because acceptance was time-limited and the letter failed to state it was intended to have the consequences specified in Part 36. The judge had been right to hold that in those circumstances the letter did not have the costs consequences specified in Part 36.
20/6/14
SAIPOL SA v INERCO TRADE SA [2014] EWHC 2211 (Comm)
Damages for breach of warranty under s 53(2) Sales of Goods Act 1979 reflect the first limb of Hadley v Baxendale (loss arising in the ordinary course) and does not require proof that the loss was in the contemplation of the parties.
17/6/14
SC v YD [2014] EWHC 2446 (Fam)
Considers when a document attracts privilege as part of negotiations to settle. A draft agreement was not privileged as neither party had been seeking to compromise a dispute when it was prepared.
13/6/14
HOSKING v SLAUGHTER & MAY (RE HELLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS (LUXEMBOURG) II SCA) [2014] EWHC 1390 (Ch)
Costs which administrators had agreed during an administration could not be referred for detailed assessment by liquidators appointed at a later date. But costs purportedly agreed by the administrators after the date of the appointment of the liquidators could be referred for assessment as the administrators were not then the responsible insolvency practitioner and so could not agree the costs at that time.
12/6/14
MARTRADE SHIPPING & TRANSPORT GMBH v UNITED ENTERPRISES CORPORATION [2014] EWHC 1884 (Comm), [2015] 1 WLR 1
But for a choice of law clause, a contract would not have been governed by English Law. In those circumstances there was no right to interest under s 12 of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
12/6/14
JSC VTB BANK v SKURIKHIN [2014] EWHC 2254 (QB)
Worldwide freezing order granted subject to exclusions for assets in specified countries.
10/6/14
ACHOM v LALIC [2014] EWHC 1888 (Ch)
No partnership had been created for the acquisition and operation of a club. There was no evidence that pre-contract negotiations had matured into a binding contract. An understanding between parties that they would in the future pursue a project as a joint venture was not of itself enough to constitute a partnership.
6/6/14
HABIB BANK LTD v CENTRAL BANK OF SUDAN [2014] EWHC 2288 (Comm)
Considers principles applicable to brining an action on a judgment and the applicable limitation period.
4/6/14
SCARLETT v GRACE [2014] EWHC 2307 (QB)
Considers principles applicable to the use of witness summaries under CPR 32.9 and the need to demonstrate inability to obtain a witness statement.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer