Tag Archives: Fladgate LLP

ILN Today Post

Fladgate strengthens Tax team with new Partner appointment, Helen Cox

Fladgate is delighted to announce the appointment of Tax Partner Helen Cox, who joins from Mishcon de Reya.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Tate Modern: A story of legal nuisance, glass walls and net curtains

It is established law that a claim can be brought by one landowner against his neighbour in “nuisance”. Such a claim can arise in the event that the neighbour is doing something on his land which is causing a problem to the first landowner.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

A Director’s Duty

When a company is solvent, the primary duty imposed on directors is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders.  This duty is codified at section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006. However, that position changes when a company is insolvent, or close to insolvency.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

What Lies Beneath: beware documents hidden in the contract bundle

The recent decision of Clancy Docwra Ltd v E.On Energy Solutions Ltd[1] is a useful reminder to parties to be clear on how works in a construction contract are defined and incorporated.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Frustrated by Brexit?

Whatever your views on Brexit and whether the UK should leave or remain and on what terms, Brexit seems a source of frustration for many people.  The question that the court had to decide was: can a tenant end its lease early because of Brexit?  The outcome will reassure landlords but be a disappointment for tenants.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Breaching an anti-suit injunction: Prince discovers no one is above the law

In Mobile Telecommunications Co KSC v HRH Prince Hussam bin Abdulaziz au Saud[1]  the High Court sentenced Prince Hussam, a Saudi Prince, to twelve months imprisonment for contempt of court for breaching an anti-suit injunction.  The judgment highlights the English court’s willingness to enforce anti-suit injunctions, even resorting to severe methods to do so.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Don’t Be Late! Court finds a genuine mistake is no justification

In a timeous reminder of the importance of adhering to court deadlines, in BMCE Bank International Plc v Phoenix Commodities PVT Ltd & Anor[1] the court refused an application for relief from sanctions where a costs budget was served late a consequence of which the defaulting party was to be limited to only recovering court fees in the event of success at trial. This was despite an undertaking by the defaulting party’s solicitors to cover both parties’ costs on an indemnity basis for the CCMC and a further CCMC if required, regardless of the outcome of those hearings.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Mutual EU-Japan adequacy decision now in force

The EU and Japan have today announced a new personal data adequacy agreement between the two parties. This agreement will allow personal data to flow freely between the two parties on the basis that there are strong protective guarantees in place.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

‘Practical Completion’ – Is your definition practically complete?

‘Practical Completion’ (PC) plays an important role on construction projects, often signifying the release of retention monies, ending the contractor’s liability for liquidated damages, commencing the defects liability period and passing possession of the works to the employer. The term is almost universally used in the construction industry, yet, despite its significance, is not legally defined and is readily left undefined in building contracts. What then does the term PC actually mean? This question was recently considered in Mears v Costplan.[1]

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

What’s settled in the board room stays in the board room. Or does it?

The Court of Appeal has handed down another significant judgment on the topic of legal professional privilege. In WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP[1], the Court clarified that litigation privilege does not extend to purely commercial communications within a company discussing proposals for settlement. The decision also addresses the Court’s approach to applications for inspection where a claim for privilege is challenged.

Read more

Read full article