This category can only be viewed by members.
Clare Arthurs and Nicole Finlayson catch the beat of non-party costs orders ‘Where a non-party does not simply fund the proceedings but substantially also controls or is to benefit from them, justice will ordinarily require the non-party to pay the successful party’s costs.' Non-party costs orders. Seemingly straightforward words, which in Various Claimants v Giambrone …
Continue reading "Insights by Penningtons Manches: Out of tune or a new refrain?"
This post is only available to members.
Nicole Finlayson and Clare Arthurs exorcise the ghost of privilege past ‘It was common ground that SDIP would not be required to produce any documents which were indeed subject to privilege which would be infringed by being produced to the FRC.’ The spectre of legal professional privilege looms large in many a judgment these days. …
Continue reading "Insights by Penningtons Manches: Another petrifying blow for privilege?"
This post is only available to members.
Miriam Everett, Julian Copeman, Christine Young, Andrew Moir, Greig Anderson and Lucy McAlister consider a recent Court of Appeal judgment ‘An organisation can be liable for data breaches even if it has taken appropriate measures to comply with the data protection legislation.’ In WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2018], the Court of Appeal …
Continue reading "Data protection: Leak liability"
This post is only available to members.
Gwendoline Davies and Lynsey Oakdene highlight the conflict between a non-reliance clause and a misrepresentation claim ‘If liability for misrepresentation would arise if the clause did not exist (as indeed it would have in this case), then s3 MA is engaged, and the clause must satisfy the reasonableness test.’ There are various strategies that contracting …
Continue reading "Misrepresentation: The voice of reason"
This post is only available to members.
Carl Troman assesses a recent decision on service by email ‘By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court there was no issue about the fact that service was invalid and the case simply turned upon whether a retrospective validation of service should be granted.’ The Supreme Court has recently given judgment in Barton v …
Continue reading "Practice: Service can be a right hassle"
This post is only available to members.
Tom Whittaker looks at the use of technology in investigations ‘Case law emphasises the need for the technology assisted review (TAR) process to be transparent and reliable so that other parties and the court can understand what has been done.’ A full understanding of any case may require a review of potentially hundreds of thousands …
Continue reading "Discovery: TARgets for lawyers"
This post is only available to members.
Kate Raybould has some bad news for employers ‘The bank’s key contention was that the status of independent contractor afforded a defence to vicarious liability and recent case law developments had not changed that position.’ The parameters of vicarious liability have been under siege recently, with a raft of decisions expanding the limits of the …
Continue reading "Vicarious liability: You can’t bank on it"
This post is only available to members.
Oliver Browne and Robert Price analyse the future direction of arbitration ‘Tribunals should be more mindful of the rights of parties suffering the consequences of guerrilla tactics than the potential for guerrillas to challenge the award.’ In 1989, Lord Mustill commented that ‘commercial arbitration [had] come far from its former roots’ but that it had …
Continue reading "Arbitration: A collision of two heads"
This post is only available to members.
Richard Marshall and James Harrison kick around a new case on implied contracts ‘HHJ Eyre QC stated that the further removed an activity is from physical participation in the sport, the more care is needed in considering whether persons involved in those activities have acceded to the rules of the governing body.’ There is a …
Continue reading "Contract: Special K"
This post is only available to members.
Nick Lees explains key cases on exclusion clauses and offers some practical advice ‘UCTA provides, in short, that any attempt to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury is void and that any attempt to exclude or restrict liability for other loss is subject to the “reasonableness test”.’ The ability to pre-emptively exclude …
Continue reading "Liability: A conclusion for exclusion?"
This post is only available to members.
