Tag Archives: United Kingdom

“Liquor Before Beer, You’re In The Clear… Beer Before Wine, You’ll Be Fine,” and So On: “Confusing” Advice For The Reveling Tippler & Registering Trademarks

 

The relationship of wine, beer, and spirits has often proved complicated and confusing for the tippler, regardless of country.  There are old saws that many repeat, and report on, that say things like “Beer Before Liquor, Never Sicker; Liquor Before Beer, You’re In The Clear” and “Wine Before Beer Leaves You Queer, But Beer Before Wine Leaves You Fine.”  One also hears such advice as one travels, with sayings like “Bier auf Wein, lass das sein; Wein auf Bier, das rat’ ich dir” in Germany (which you can hear here and which I am told essentially means “Beer after wine is to be avoided; wine after beer is advised”), and “sörre bor, jó gyomor, borra sör, meggyötör” in Hungary (which you can also hear here and which has been roughly translated for me as “beer then wine leaves a good stomach; wine then beer leaves it [i.e. the stomach] tormented”), as others are quick to mention. And, of course, there are many, many other bits of drinking doggerel that are a bit difficult to remember and keep straight.

Read more

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Attorneys and gifts

The Public Guardian’s new ‘Practice Note PN7: giving gifts’ is a must-read for any attorney appointed under an Enduring or Lasting Power of Attorney, or deputy, faced with the thorny issue of whether they can use the incapable donor’s funds in a transaction which is not for value – such as a payment by way of gift or to meet a person’s needs.

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

A tale of Two Right Feet: indemnity costs for baby business

The tale of Two Right Feet Limited reminds us of the importance of investigating and considering the merits of a claim prior to commencing proceedings, and the dangers of forging ahead with speculative litigation.

In July 2017 a judgment of the High Court of Justice in Two Right Feet Limited (In Liquidation) v National Westminster Bank Plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, KPMG LLP[1] ordered Two Right Feet Limited, an insolvent online baby products business (previously featured on BBC’s Watchdog), to pay indemnity costs of the three defendants.

Read More

Read full article
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