Tag Archives: Fladgate LLP

ILN Today Post

Limitation periods and standstill agreements: How can they impact your claims?

Claims arising from construction projects often require consideration of the law of limitation.

Limitation periods are statutorily prescribed windows within which claimants must commence claims. These periods do not, however, sit naturally against the nature and timeline of projects, where numerous parties are involved, the period from commencement through to completion can span many years, and the parties’ liabilities extend beyond completion.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Block-insurance-buster

Block insurance policies are a very common way of insuring multiple properties. Landlords can benefit from economies of scale and may find the administration easier with only one renewal date and uniform terms. However, earlier this year the Upper Tribunal held that one landlord could not recover its block policy premia, despite being permitted to do so under the terms of its lease, because the premia were not “reasonably incurred”.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Is a UK parent liable for the conduct of its foreign subsidiary?

In a landmark decision in Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc[1] the Court of Appeal has ruled that a number of claimants can pursue their claim against a Zambian mining company and its English parent in the English courts despite the claim’s limited connection to England. The decision has widened the scope of potential claims against a UK parent company to include claims by those affected by a subsidiary’s operations. The decision should be on the radar of UK companies with foreign operations.

Read More 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Flammable cladding: important issues for occupiers to consider

Occupiers must be alert to changes to lending and insurance requirements as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.  The fire initiated the largest review of health and safety legislation in the UK since 1945.  Two inquiries are currently underway which are expected to lead to substantial changes to building regulations and fire safety, with a public inquiry investigating the causes of the fire.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Out of time Inheritance Act claims: lessons from the Sargeant case

Mrs Mary Sargeant’s case is a classic example of why advisers of bereaved widow(er)s are ideally placed to help their clients consider whether sufficient provision has been made for them under their deceased spouse’s Will.  The problem, as Mrs Sargeant found out, is that this is sometimes not obvious even a number of months after their spouse’s death.  However, the law places restrictions on how long bereaved spouses can take to try to improve their financial lot if insufficient provision has been made for them.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Living overseas doesn’t mean you aren’t domiciled in England

In a useful reminder for parties who might not otherwise consider themselves to be subject to English jurisdiction, in the recent case of Bestolov v Povarenkin, the High Court confirmed that, where a defendant is domiciled in England, the courts of this country have jurisdiction and moreover no discretion to decline jurisdiction.

The court held that the defendant was domiciled in England, although he was a Russian national who had always been resident in Russia, had a “family home” in Moscow, was tax domiciled in Russia, ran his business from Russia, spent about 200 days of the year in Russia and had no business assets in England.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Court bans abusive litigation tactics but for how long?

A welcome decision of the English High Court that potentially abusive litigation tactics cannot prevail could prove short-lived as a result of Brexit uncertainty.

The usual court first seized rule applies where claims are issued by disputing parties in the courts of two or more EU member states.  This means that all courts must stay their own proceedings until the court where the proceedings were brought first in time has determined whether it has jurisdiction.  It became possible to exploit this anomaly through a practice known as the “Italian torpedo”.  By commencing pre-emptive proceedings in Italy, lengthy delays in the Italian courts could severely delay the chosen court in proceeding to hear the claim.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Minimum Energy Efficiency: it’s all about MEE MEE MEE

As stated in our articles ‘A greener and more pleasant land?‘ and ‘EPCs and minimum energy efficiency standards for private rented properties, the implementation of the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) takes effect from 1 April 2018.

With the implementation date fast approaching, this article is intended as a reminder of the main requirements imposed by the Regulations and a review of the practical consequences for those letting and occupying commercial premises.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Third party funders on the hook for indemnity costs

On 18 November 2016, the Court of Appeal brought an end to the long running Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others litigation, providing some useful guidance on the extent to which third party litigation funders may be liable to pay the costs of a successful defendant in a funded claim.   In short, funders may be liable for indemnity costs awarded against their funded clients even when they themselves have been guilty of “no discernible conduct”.  The court considered that the derivative nature of a funder’s involvement should ordinarily lead to it being required to contribute to costs on the same basis as the funded claimant.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Your claim has been declined

In July 2017, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) refused to approve the proposed £14 billion class action claim against MasterCard on behalf of 46.2 million consumers who purchased goods or services from UK businesses which accepted MasterCard between 1992 and 2008.  The claim followed on from the EU Commission finding in 2007 that MasterCard’s default interchange fee (the fee charged between banks when processing card payments) was an anti-competitive agreement in breach of article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and resulted in higher fees being charged between acquiring banks.

Read More

Read full article