Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2016 #164B had been involved in litigation against A and the AP family (the litigation) from which he potentially stood to recover large sums of money. The claimant, G, was B’s long-term partner. In March 2012 the litigation deed was drawn up to reflect agreement between B and G regarding G’s entitlement to B’s assets (including the litigation). B subsequently lost his case against A and entered into settlement discussions with the AP family. The litigation agreement was a further document signed in September 2012 to reflect an agreement between B and G concerning her entitlement to any sums from...
Jenny Salmon reports on MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON and the lessons to be learned ‘Any warranty as to the length of operational life should have been expressly set out in the contract… and not buried in the technical requirements.’Contracts are the foundation-stone for the legal rights and responsibilities of the parties to any construction …
Continue reading "Contract: Failing foundations – the legal approach to contractual ambiguity"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2011 #115The claimants were trustees of a Jersey property unit trust formed on 17 March 2006 as the vehicle for the purchase of warehouse premises (the property). It was arranged that the vendor of the property would transfer the property to the trustees in return for units, which would then be sold by the vendor to the purchasers. The purchasers were Cantabria Investments Limited (Cantabria) as to 99% of the units and Catalunya Investments Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cantabria) as to 1%. Cantabria was partly owned by Glenmac Limited (Glenmac). Half of Glenmac’s share capital was ...
