In Site. Delivery of an adjudicator s decision what happens if it is not delivered in time?
|
|
- Laureen Hood
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Autumn 2010 Authors: Kevin Greene +44.(0) Inga K. Hall +44.(0) Suzannah E. Boyd +44.(0) Lee M. Forsyth +44.(0) Welcome to the Autumn 2010 edition of In Site. This edition covers the following topics: Delivery of an adjudicator s decision what happens if it is not delivered in time? The decision in CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar on the meaning of all reasonable endeavours clauses Sending the wrong tender unilateral mistake and rectification Withdrawing Part 36 offers The decision in Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd on incorporation of terms For more information on any of these articles, or on any other issue relating to construction and engineering law, please contact any of the authors or your usual K&L Gates contact. K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of 36 offices located in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information, visit Delivery of an adjudicator s decision what happens if it is not delivered in time? Adjudicators must not only reach their decisions within the timeframes stipulated in the adjudication agreement, but they must also deliver those decisions swiftly. Otherwise their decisions may be unenforceable. In Lee v Chartered Properties (Building) Ltd [2010] EWHC 1540 (TCC), Ms Lee (as employer) entered into a refurbishment contract with Chartered Properties (as contractor) in the form of the JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2005 edition. Chartered successfully referred a final account dispute to adjudication. On enforcement, however, Ms Lee raised a number of challenges to the adjudicator s jurisdiction, including whether or not the adjudicator had reached and delivered his decision in time. The adjudication clause in the contract provided that the Scheme for Construction Contracts ( the Scheme ) would apply to disputes under the contract. The Scheme makes a distinction between the reaching and delivery of an adjudicator s decision; paragraph 19(3) of the Scheme requires the adjudicator to deliver a copy of the decision as soon as possible after reaching it. As in this case, an adjudicator s decision can be held to be unenforceable if the adjudicator does not deliver his decision as required by the Scheme. The adjudicator ed the parties the day before his decision was due and informed them he would reach his decision the following day (Friday 13 November), as required by the agreed timetable. He also asked if the parties had any objection to the decision being delivered the following Monday 16 November (to allow time for typing and proof-reading). Chartered agreed, but Ms Lee did not respond either way. The adjudicator ed again on the Friday afternoon confirming he had reached his decision.
2 On the following Monday afternoon he delivered the decision (by ), which was stated to be made the 13 November 2009 under my hand. Akenhead J held that, in the circumstances of the case, with a delay of 74 hours, it could not be said that the adjudicator had delivered a copy of his decision as soon as possible after he reached it and, therefore, the decision was unenforceable. There was no evidence why the adjudicator needed 3 days to undertake word processing and delivery (especially as he worked for a large firm of quantity surveyors and had access to their facilities). In reaching his decision, the judge followed the decisions reached in previous cases on similar issues. In Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 1055 (TCC), for example, HHJ Thornton QC held (in relation to a decision delivered 1 day after it was reached): any delay after the end of the relevant adjudication period in delivering the decision must be minimal any failure to comply with the requirement of prompt and rapid delivery will render the decision unenforceable. The key point here is that both parties to an adjudication need to agree to extend the time for the adjudicator to deliver his decision, or the adjudicator must provide a very good reason why the decision could not be delivered close to the time it was reached. Administrative problems are unlikely to be sufficient. As the judge commented, even if the Decision (which would be unlikely and somewhat unusual) had been drafted in long hand, there is no good reason why it could not have been faxed or scanned and e- mailed over to the parties. The decision in CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar on the meaning of all reasonable endeavours clauses The well-publicised case of CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010] EWHC 1535 (Ch) adds to our understanding of what it means to use all reasonable endeavours. In 2007 CPC and Qatari Diar ( QD ) entered into a joint venture agreement to acquire and redevelop the Chelsea Barracks in Westminster. This case centred on whether QD had acted in breach of a sale and purchase agreement in withdrawing its planning application after the intervention of the Prince of Wales in opposing the redevelopment. Under that agreement, QD owed CPC an obligation to use all reasonable but commercially prudent endeavours to enable certain threshold events to be achieved (which relied mainly on QD s progress in obtaining planning permission for the redevelopment). Cases such as Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC ([2007] EWHC 292 Comm) have established that, in the range of different types of endeavours clauses included in contracts, best endeavours represents the most stringent obligation and reasonable endeavours the least stringent. As far as the middle ground is concerned, an obligation to use all reasonable endeavours may well equate to best endeavours in terms of the number of reasonable courses of action that should be taken (Rhodia, obiter), but the two obligations are likely to differ as to the extent to which the party owing the obligation is obliged to sacrifice its own commercial interests in complying with it (Yewbelle Limited v London Green Developments ([2007] EWCA Civ 475). Although that may not always be the case (the other provisions of the contract and surrounding commercial context also being relevant), the Court in the present case held that the nature of the obligation was made quite clear by the inclusion of the commercially prudent words which qualified the stringency of the obligation. QD was, therefore, only required to take all reasonable steps to procure planning permission, provided such steps were commercially prudent. The Court concluded that QD had complied with this obligation and was entitled to consider its own commercial interests (and not just those of CPC) when deciding how to respond to the Prince of Wales objections. Sending the wrong tender unilateral mistake and rectification The consequences of submitting the wrong version of a tender was the subject matter of the decision in Traditional Structures Ltd v H W Construction [2010] EWHC 1530 (TCC). Traditional Structures ("TSL") had been asked by H W Construction ("HW") to provide a quotation for steelwork and roof cladding. TSL completed the tender, stating that it was a tender for the supply and delivery of structural steelwork and claddings. By mistake, however, the tender sent to HW only contained a price for the steelwork ( 37,573.43). TSL s file copy of the tender contained the steelwork price and, written underneath, a separate roof cladding price ( 32,365.83). Autumn
3 HW made no mention of the missing roof cladding price in a number of s and telephone calls to TSL. The tender was accepted and TSL later invoiced HW with revised prices for the steelwork and cladding following variations. HW refused to pay on the grounds that it had accepted the total as 37, as set out in the tender. The question, therefore, arose as to whether TSL was bound to carry out the work for the price stated in the contract or whether, as TSL argued, the unilateral mistake should be rectified and the price increased to include the missing roof cladding price. For a rectification claim to succeed, there needed to be evidence of a mistake by one party, together with evidence that the other party had knowledge of the mistake, but chose to say nothing, or looked the other way in order to make some personal gain. In this context, knowledge means deliberately failing to ask the questions that an honest man would ask or shutting one s eyes to the obvious. If there is no actual knowledge, then there has to be a finding of dishonesty or a degree of sharp practice of a type that goes beyond the boundaries of fair dealing. After undertaking a detailed review of the tender document wording, the parties correspondence and witness evidence, the judge found that HW s managing director wilfully and recklessly failed to enquire whether the tender price included the price of the cladding works, and shut his eyes to the obvious, the obvious being that the price quoted was demonstrably or self-evidently a price that related only to structural steelwork. The judge held, therefore, that HW had actual knowledge of the mistake and, as this was unconscionable, the mistake was rectified. This case provides a useful yardstick as to what the courts regard as unfair in commercial dealings. Cases such as this are rare, but it demonstrates the courts willingness to rectify a contract to reflect a more reasonable position. Withdrawing Part 36 offers Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules enables claimants and defendants to make settlement offers, and sets out the steps which must be followed to accept, or withdraw, such offers. Part 36 sits apart from ordinary contractual principles and the general rules that apply when making a contractual offer. This was clearly affirmed in Gibbon v Manchester City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 726. In the Gibbon case, the claimant made a Part 36 offer on 18 November 2008 to accept 2,500. The defendant rejected this offer and made a number of counter-offers to the claimant. The claimant rejected the highest of these offers (also 2,500) on 18 February 2009 and, on 26 February, the defendant purported to accept the claimant's 18 November offer of 2,500. A key point in this case was that the claimant had not at any time formally withdrawn her 18 November offer. She argued, however, that, as the defendant had previously rejected that offer, it was incapable of acceptance thereafter under ordinary contractual principles. CPR 36.9(2) states that a Part 36 offer may be accepted at any time (whether or not the offeree has subsequently made a different offer) unless the offeror serves a notice of withdrawal on the offeree. The Court held that this rule is quite clear and an offer remains open for acceptance at any time notwithstanding the offeree rejecting the offer or making a different offer - unless and until written notice of the withdrawal (or change of terms of the offer) is served on the offeree in accordance with CPR 36.3(7). In the Gibbon case, the claimant did not ever formally withdraw her 18 November offer and it therefore remained open for acceptance notwithstanding the intervening events. The Court held that the requirement to serve a written notice of withdrawal under CPR 36.3(7) left no room for the concept of implied withdrawal and, as such, the claimant s 18 February letter rejecting the defendant s offer of 2,500 could not constitute an implied withdrawal of her earlier offer for the same amount. It did not refer to the 18 November offer and did not contain any language that could be construed as a notice of withdrawal. Autumn
4 The decision in Gibbon illustrates how different Part 36 offer and acceptance is to the general contractual approach, with the Court explaining: Part 36 allows a defendant (or for that matter a claimant) to decide whether to leave his offer open for acceptance or to withdraw it and make another offer later. To import into Part 36 the common law rule that an offer lapses on rejection by the offeree would undermine this important element of the scheme. It could give rise to disputes about whether the offer had been rejected in any given case so as render it incapable of acceptance. It is important to keep all Part 36 offers under close review and formally withdraw any which are no longer on the table. The decision is helpful as it gives guidance as to what a notice of withdrawal should include to avoid uncertainty, with the Court stating that [a]lthough the rule does not prescribe any particular form of notice, in order to avoid uncertainty it should include an express reference to the date of the offer and its terms, together with some words making it clear that it is withdrawn. The decision in Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd on incorporation of terms The decision in Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 3272 (TCC) is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that contract amendments are properly incorporated into the contract and that bespoke clauses do not fall foul of order of priority clauses. The parties in this case contracted under a JCT Design and Build Contract (Revision 1) 2007 form of contract. As well as agreeing an amendment to JCT clause extending the payment period from 14 to 21 days, a detailed payment evaluation procedure was tucked away in the Employer s Requirements. This stipulated a different (and later) starting point for the calculation of the final date for payment and also gave the employer s agent control over the timescale for issuing a withholding notice. Significantly, the JCT order of priority clause (clause 1.3) was left un-amended and stated that nothing contained in the Employer s Requirements overrides or modifies the Agreement or Conditions. In the event of conflict, therefore, the JCT Conditions prevailed. A dispute arose in respect of an interim payment application as to whether Fenice (the Employer) had issued a withholding notice on time, which in turn depended on how the payment mechanism was to be interpreted. The basic point of difference between the parties was that, if the JCT Conditions applied, the withholding notice was late, whereas, if (as Fenice contended) the payment mechanism contained in the Employer s Requirements applied, the withholding notice had been issued within time. The dispute was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator agreed with Falkus (the contractor) but Fenice did not pay the sum awarded, instead seeking CPR Part 8 declarations that its interpretation of the contract was correct (and, therefore, that the adjudicator s was wrong). Coulson J found that the two sets of payment provisions fundamentally conflicted with each other and could not operate together. Although the general rule is that a term specifically drafted for a contract takes precedence over a standard term, here there was an express agreement to the contrary -the order of priority clause - and the judge found no reason why it should not be applied in order to resolve the conflict. Accordingly, he found that the contractor s interpretation of the payment provisions was to be preferred and enforced the adjudicator s decision. This suggests, of course, that the decision in this case would have been different if Fenice had incorporated their payment mechanism as an amendment to the JCT Conditions themselves, as then the order of priority clause would not have operated against them. Owing to the nature of this particular amendment, however, Coulson J indicated that this may not necessarily have been the case. He said that, even if he was wrong about which payment mechanism was incorporated into the contract, he did not consider that the payment mechanism in the Employer s Requirements would be an adequate mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract, and when as required by section 110 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 because the payment period could effectively be extended at will by Fenice. As such, it would not be enforceable under the Act. Autumn
5 Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt Harrisburg Hong Kong London Los Angeles Miami Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Diego San Francisco Seattle Shanghai Singapore Spokane/Coeur d Alene Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of 36 offices located in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information, visit K&L Gates is comprised of multiple affiliated entities: a limited liability partnership with the full name K&L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and maintaining offices throughout the United States, in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K&L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), in Dubai, U.A.E., in Shanghai (K&L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office), in Tokyo, and in Singapore; a limited liability partnership (also named K&L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and maintaining offices in London and Paris; a Taiwan general partnership (K&L Gates) maintaining an office in Taipei; a Hong Kong general partnership (K&L Gates, Solicitors) maintaining an office in Hong Kong; a Polish limited partnership (K&L Gates Jamka sp. k.) maintaining an office in Warsaw; and a Delaware limited liability company (K&L Gates Holdings, LLC) maintaining an office in Moscow. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners or members in each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office. This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved. Autumn
In Site UK Construction and Engineering Newsletter
UK Construction and Engineering Newsletter Winter 2010/2011 Authors: Suzannah E. Boyd suzannah.boyd@klgates.com +44.(0)20.7360.8186 Kevin Greene kevin.greene@klgates.com +44.(0)20.7360.8188 Inga K. Hall
More informationIn-Site. Letters of intent
Summer 2010 Authors: Kevin Greene kevin.greene@klgates.com +44.(0)20.7360.8188 Robert Hadley robert.hadley@klgates.com +44.(0)20.7360.8166 Inga Hall inga.hall@klgates.com +44.(0)20.7360.8137 Becky Rowell
More informationDesign Life Warranties and Fitness for Purpose in Construction Contracts: the Position in Australia and England
May 2016 Practice Group: Real Estate Design Life Warranties and Fitness for Purpose in Construction Contracts: the Position in Australia and England By Sandra Steele, Belinda Montgomery and Julia Kingston
More informationSecurity of Payment Legislation and Set-Off Under Commonwealth Insolvency Laws
1 April 2015 Practice Group(s): Energy & Infrastructure Projects and Transactions Real Estate Restructuring and Insolvency Security of Payment Legislation and Set-Off Under Commonwealth Australia Energy,
More informationDelaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations
4 January 2017 Practice Group(s): Corporate/M&A Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for By Lisa R. Stark and Taylor B. Bartholomew In Solak v. Sarowitz, C.A. No. 12299-CB
More informationBackground. 21 August Practice Group: Public Policy and Law. By Raymond P. Pepe
21 August 2014 Practice Group: Public Policy and Law Permanent Injunction of Pennsylvania s Prohibition against Establishment of Political Committees to Receive Contributions of Corporate and Labor Union
More informationMortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Alert
Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Alert May 11, 2011 Authors: R. Bruce Allensworth bruce.allensworth@klgates.com +1. 617.261.3119 Andrew C. Glass andrew.glass@klgates.com +1. 617.261.3107
More information340B Update: HRSA Finalizes 340B Pricing & Penalties for Drug Manufacturers
18 January 2017 Practice Group: Health Care 340B Update: HRSA Finalizes 340B Pricing & Penalties for Drug Manufacturers By Richard P. Church, Michael H. Hinckle, Ryan J. Severson On January 5, 2017, the
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
More informationEndeavours Obligations
Endeavours Obligations 0 ENDEAVOURS OBLIGATIONS Introduction The terms all reasonable endeavours, reasonable endeavours and best endeavours are regularly used in the drafting of commercial agreements and
More informationA Useful Contribution? Incorporation of terms
A Useful Contribution? Summer 2009 In this issue: In Site Updating you on legal developments affecting the construction industry A Useful Contribution?...1 Construction Bill Update...2 Waiver Clauses...3
More informationAdapting to a New Era of Strict Criminal Liability Enforcement under Pennsylvania s Environmental Laws
October 11, 2013 Practice Groups: Oil and Gas Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Energy Adapting to a New Era of Strict Criminal Liability Enforcement under Pennsylvania s Environmental Laws By
More informationENDEAVOURS OBLIGATIONS:
DISPUTE RESOLUTION This is the fifth in our series of contract disputes practical guides, designed to provide clients with practical guidance on some key issues that feature in disputes relating to commercial
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationEagle Take Permit Program Revamped Longer Permits and Clearer Mitigation Requirements
May 2016 Practice Groups: Energy Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Eagle Take Permit Program Revamped Longer Permits and Clearer By Ankur K. Tohan, James M. Lynch, Daniel C. Kelly-Stallings, Benjamin
More informationThe Eyes of Texas are upon a Subsurface Trespass Case
January 13, 2014 Practice Group: Oil and Gas Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Energy, Infrastructure and Resources The Eyes of Texas are upon a Subsurface Trespass Case By John F. Sullivan, Anthony
More informationIs Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?
October 16, 2015 Practice Groups: Patent Office Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Managemnet IP Litigation Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review? By Mark G. Knedeisen and Mark R. Leslie
More informationInstant Messaging: Vote-A-Rama Provides Rare Insight into Tax Reform
March 28, 2013 Practice Groups: Public Policy and Law; Tax; Global Government Solutions Instant Messaging: Vote-A-Rama Provides Rare Insight By: Michael W. Evans, Mary Burke Baker, Karishma S. Page, Ryan
More informationImmigration Alert. New uscis Form I-9
Immigration Alert November 2007 Author: Hayes C. Stover 412.355.6476 hayes.stover@klgates.com K&L Gates comprises approximately 1,400 lawyers in 22 offices located in North America, Europe and Asia and
More informationAppeals Court Resoundingly Affirms Scope and Breadth of Shipping Act Antitrust Exemption
31 January 2017 Practice Groups: Antitrust and Trade Regulation Maritime Appeals Court Resoundingly Affirms Scope and Breadth of Shipping Act By John Longstreth, Michael Scanlon, and Allen Bachman In August
More informationARBITRATION IS BACK ON THE DOCKET: THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE ENFORCEABILITY OF CLASS-ACTION WAIVERS IN EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
27 January 2017 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Labor, Employment and Workplace Safety THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE ENFORCEABILITY OF CLASS-ACTION WAIVERS IN EMPLOYMENT
More informationGovernment Investigations Into Cybersecurity Breaches In Healthcare
11 February 2016 Practice Groups: Cyber Law and Cybersecurity; Global Government Solutions; Government Enforcement; Health Care Government Investigations Into Cybersecurity Breaches In Healthcare By: Mark
More information20 July Practice Group: Energy. By Ankur K. Tohan, Alyssa A. Moir, Gabrielle E. Thompson
20 July 2016 Practice Group: Energy Constitutional Limits to Greenhouse Gas Regulation: 8th Circuit Relies on the Dormant Commerce Clause to Reject Minnesota s GHG Limits on Imported Power By Ankur K.
More informationPaying for the Wall: Will President Trump s Administration Scrutinize, Tax, or Seize Remittances?
13 January 2017 Practice Groups: Public Policy and Law Government Enforcement FinTech Paying for the Wall: Will President Trump s Administration Scrutinize, Tax, or Seize Remittances? By Joseph A. Valenti,
More informationEnvironmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert
Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Alert October 2009 Authors: William H. Hyatt, Jr. william.hyatt@klgates.com +1.973.848.4045 Mary Theresa S. Kenny mary.kenny@klgates.com +1.973.848.4042 K&L Gates
More informationState-By-State Chart of Citations
State-By-State Chart of Citations Law Forum Statute Text AZ Yes Yes (A.) The following are against this state s public policy and are void and unenforceable: (1.) A provision, covenant, clause or understanding
More informationIMPROVING PAYMENT PRACTICES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
IMPROVING PAYMENT PRACTICES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Report of the DTI s post-consultation event held in London on 14th February 2006 On Valentine s Day 2006, the Right Honourable Alun Michael MP compared
More informationNEFF CORP FORM S-8. (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14
NEFF CORP FORM S-8 (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14 Address 3750 N.W. 87TH AVENUE SUITE 400 MIAMI, FL 33178 Telephone 3055133350 CIK 0001617667 Symbol NEFF SIC Code 7359
More informationMOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY:
MANAGING THE GLOBAL WORKFORCE WEBINAR SERIES MOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY: STRATEGIES FOR NAVIGATING COMMON CHALLENGES Nicholas Hobson Rebecca Kelly K. Lesli Ligorner Eleanor Pelta June 6, 2018 2018 Morgan,
More informationWhere Can Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Cases Stick After TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC?
9 June 2017 Practice Groups: Pharma and BioPharma Litigation IP Litigation Where Can Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Cases Stick After TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC? By Elizabeth Weiskopf, Kenneth
More informationSeminar for HKIS on: "Non-Payment and Termination of Contracts"
Seminar for HKIS on: "Non-Payment and Termination of Contracts" 13 May 2014 Joyce Leung, Associate Projects (Engineering & Construction) Practice Contractual Termination Conditional upon: 1. an event -
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, ) Case No.: 08CV4572 a General Partnership, ) ) Judge John Darrah Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BlockShopper
More informationHIPAA Privacy Compliance Initiative: Final Rules Impact Employer Health Plans
HIPAA Privacy Compliance Initiative: Final Rules Impact Employer Health Plans www.morganlewis.com Presenters: Sage Fattahian Lauren Licastro Georgina O Hara Date: February 8, 2013 Time: 12:30-1:30 p.m.
More informationChallenging Government decisions in the UK. An introduction to judicial review
Challenging Government decisions in the UK An introduction to judicial review Challenging Government decisions in the UK Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of challenging
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationOil & Gas JOA Defaults: Enforcing Forfeiture Clauses after the Cavendish Square Decision
Oil & Gas JOA Defaults: Enforcing Forfeiture Clauses after the Cavendish Square Decision February 2016 The continuing decline in oil & gas prices has led to increasing numbers of defaults under oil & gas
More informationPAY NOW, ARBITRATE LATER?
BRIEFING PAY NOW, ARBITRATE LATER? OCTOBER 2018 ENGLISH HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT ONLY MATTERS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO ENFORCEABILITY OF ADJUDICATOR S DECISION WILL FALL WITHIN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT EXCEPTION
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1025 May 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pending a decision on BNY s appeal, structured transaction and derivative lawyers should carefully consider the drafting of current
More informationBusiness Immigration. Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme. December 2018
Business Immigration Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme December 2018 Foreword Brexit will have a major impact on EU nationals and their family members in the UK. The Government has introduced a plan
More informationConditions Precedent to Recovery of Loss and Expense Claims
Conditions Precedent to Recovery of Loss and Expense Claims Dated 07 January 2011 Author Robert Dalton (Head of Construction and Dispute Resolution NW for Blake Newport) Introduction There is a growing
More informationDocument Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert
February 2007 Authors: Carolyn M. Branthoover +1.412.355.5902 carolyn.branthoover@klgates.com Karen I. Marryshow +1.412.355.6379 karen.marryshow@klgates.com K&L Gates comprises approximately 1,400 lawyers
More informationPart 36, Construction and the Doctrine of Mistake. Andrew Hogan
Part 36, Construction and the Doctrine of Mistake Andrew Hogan For many reasons, the tool of choice to use for the compromise of disputes, either litigated or at the pre-litigation stage, is the part 36
More informationSettlement Offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Settlement Offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules September 2017 Contents Introduction 1 When is a settlement offer a true Part 36 Offer? 2 Costs consequences of making a Part 36 Offer 4 Part
More informationCan Entire Agreement And Exclusion Clauses Cure Misrepresentations?
Can Entire Agreement And Exclusion Clauses Cure Misrepresentations? Introduction The case of BSkyB v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd [2010] QBD 267 (TCC) involved an invitation to tender by the Plaintiff
More informationBRIEFING NIL BY MOUTH? EXCLUDING ORAL VARIATION OF CONTRACTS MAY 2018
BRIEFING NIL BY MOUTH? EXCLUDING ORAL VARIATION OF CONTRACTS MAY 2018 THE UK SUPREME COURT HAS OVERTURNED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND DETERMINED THAT NO ORAL MODIFICATION CLAUSES ARE EFFECTIVE
More informationMott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] Adj.L.R. 05/23
JUDGMENT : HHJ Anthony Thornton QC. TCC. 23 rd May 2007 1. Introduction 1. The claimant, Mott MacDonald Ltd ( MM ) is a specialist engineering multi-disciplinary consultancy providing services to the construction
More informationGalliford Try Construction Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [2008] APP.L.R. 03/14
JUDGMENT : Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 14 th March 2008 Introduction 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order that paragraphs 39 to 48 inclusive of the witness statement of Mr Joseph Martin,
More information2. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCEDURAL REGULATION ARTICLE
RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION S CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO REGULATION 773/2004 AND THE NOTICES ON ACCESS TO THE FILE, LENIENCY, SETTLEMENTS AND COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL COURTS Freshfields
More informationSpence International Investments. LLC. eta/. v. the Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/2)
SIDELEYI SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 +1 202 736 8000 +1 202 736 8711 FAX BEIJING HONG KONG SAN FRANCISCO BOSTON HOUSTON SHANGHAI. BRUSSELS LONDON SINGAPORE CENTURY CITY
More informationNew Jersey Enacts Environmental Enforcement Enhancement Act.
April 2008 Authors: John F. Spinello +1.973.848.4061 john.spinello@klgates.com Mary Kenny +1.973.848.4042 mary.kenny@klgates.com Dawn Monsen +1.973.848.4148 dawn.monsen@klgates.com K&L Gates comprises
More informationRecent Developments in Adjudication
Richard Bailey Recent Developments in Adjudication Introduction On 1 May 2008 it will be ten years since statutory adjudication was introduced into construction contracts by the Housing Grants, Construction
More informationDecember 15, Dear Justice Singh: VIA ECF LITIGATION
1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6797 +1 212 698 3500 Main +1 212 698 3599 Fax www.dechert.com JAMES M. MCGUIRE December 15, 2013 james.mcguire@dechert.com +1 212 698 3658 Direct +1 212 698
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2017 ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4 Joshua G. Hamilton Direct Dial: + 1.424.653.5509 joshua.hamilton@lw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763 www.lw.com
More informationWeekly Update A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law
Weekly Update A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law 03/10 CONTENTS Habas Sinai v Sometal 2 A Clyde & Co case on the incorporation of an arbitration clause from earlier
More informationSarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Registration No. 333-101826 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Sarepta
More informationCase3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel
Case3:12-mc-80237-CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5 555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE: +1.415.626.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700 VIA ECF United States District
More informationHOW IS THE NLRB S NEW ELECTION PROCESS AFFECTING CAMPUS ORGANIZING?
HOW IS THE NLRB S NEW ELECTION PROCESS AFFECTING CAMPUS ORGANIZING? Jonathan C. Fritts June 9, 2015 2015 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Agenda Overview of the NLRB s new election process and its implementation
More informationDRS2C. RICS Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) Request for the appointment of a construction adjudicator in England Wales and Northern Ireland.
DRS2C RICS Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) Request for the appointment of a construction adjudicator in England Wales and Northern Ireland. General: Most forms of construction contract, particularly standard
More informationWeekly Update A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law
Weekly Update A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law 12/10 CONTENTS Sylvia Shipping v Progress Bulk Carriers 2 A case on the test for remoteness of damages and whether
More informationDavid Johnson PRACTICE CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. Call Date: 2010 //
David Johnson Call Date: 2010 // djohnson@atkinchambers.com CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JURISDICTION DISPUTES AND CONFLICT OF LAWS GENERAL COMMERCIAL PRACTICE David
More informationMortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Legal Insight
Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Legal Insight June 2010 Authors: R. Bruce Allensworth bruce.allensworth@klgates.com +1.617.261.3119 Andrew C. Glass andrew.glass@klgates.com +1.617.261.3107
More informationRiaz Hussain QC PRACTICE BUILDING DISPUTES. Call Date: 2001, Silk: 2016 //
GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND INVESTMENT DISPUTES ENERGY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND UTILITIES BUILDING DISPUTES ADJUDICATION PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE Riaz Hussain QC Call Date: 2001, Silk: 2016 // rhussain@atkinchambers.com
More informationTerms and Conditions for SkillsFuture Credit Eligible Courses
Terms and Conditions for SkillsFuture Credit Eligible Courses 1. Scope of Terms and Conditions 1.1 Amongst other things, these Terms and Conditions shall apply to Courses (defined below). 2. Definitions
More informationJudicial Review. Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Procedure & Practice
Judicial Review Procedure & Practice Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Charles Brasted & Ben Gaston Report Judicial Review November 2013 1 Where
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationUse and abuse of anti-arbitration injunctions: strategies in dealing with anti-arbitration injunctions
Use and abuse of anti-arbitration injunctions: strategies in dealing with anti-arbitration injunctions Court assistance in international arbitration how to use it wisely and efficiently Anti-suit and anti-arbitration
More information1 terms & conditions STAL5/6 AEF.AS
'Literature' means catalogues, pamphlets, price lists and advertising literature provided by us and includes materials on our website. CRYOGENETICS LTD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR EQUINE SEMEN STORAGE AND
More informationOmnibus accounts in Poland new solutions available to foreign investors and custodians
Briefing note December 2011 Omnibus accounts in Poland new solutions available to foreign investors and custodians On 16 September 2011, the Act Amending the Act on Trading in Financial Instruments and
More informationCommercial Contracts Bulletin
Commercial Contracts Bulletin March 2018 CONTENTS Contents 3 5 7 8 10 Houseboats, entire agreement clauses and misrepresentation Sparks fly over implied terms Effective service of warranty claims: following
More informationENDEAVOURS CLAUSES: WHEN THEY WORK AND WHAT THEY MEAN
ENDEAVOURS CLAUSES: WHEN THEY WORK AND WHAT THEY MEAN Ross Fentem, Guildhall Chambers Endeavours clauses: why analyse them at all? 1. The title of this paper may be thought somewhat ambitious. Endeavours
More informationConstruction Contracts: No implied obligation to get on with it
BuildLaw - Issue 13 - No Implied Obligation to get on with it 1 Construction Contracts: No implied obligation to get on with it An issue that regularly crops-up in practice, but rarely before the courts,
More informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution in England and Wales
Alternative Dispute Resolution in England and Wales October 2017 Contents Introduction 1 Support for ADR 2 Main features of ADR 4 Mediation 5 Other types of ADR 6 Timing 8 Cases suitable for ADR 9 Conclusion
More informationCase 3:16-cv JD Document Filed 05/22/18 Page 2 of 19
Case 3:16-cv-00036-JD Document 137-1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 2 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Elizabeth J. Cabraser (CA SBN 083151) ecabraser@lchb.com Kelly
More informationB: Principles of Law. DGT Steel and Cladding Ltd v Cubbitt Building and Interiors Ltd [2007] Adj.L.R. 07/04
JUDGMENT : HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER COULSON QC: TCC. 4 th July 2007 A: Introduction 1. This application raises a short but important point of principle in connection with the law relating to adjudication.
More informationNew Civil Code and Contracts What You Should Know
GBA Meeting, Ho Chi Minh City, 11 September 2017 New Civil Code and Contracts What You Should Know Duane Morris Vietnam LLC Manfred Otto 2017 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered
More informationChina's New Exit-Entry Law Targets Illegal Foreigners July 2012
China's New Exit-Entry Law Targets Illegal Foreigners July 2012 Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of the alert please contact a person mentioned below or the person
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 1090 October 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Pending and Future Projects Under CEQA This legislation is intended
More informationAhmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v. Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] APP.L.R. 01/28
CA on Appeal from High Court of Justice TCC (HHJ Bowsher QC) before Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. 28 th January 2000. JUDGMENT : Lord Justice Waller: 1. This is an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge
More informationNuclear Oversight Committee of the Duke Energy Corporation Board of Directors
CHARLOTTE MOSCOW CHICAGO NEW YORK GENEVA NEWARK HONG KONG PARIS LONDON SAN FRANCISCO LOS ANGELES WASHINGTON, D.C. Nuclear Oversight Committee of the Duke Energy Corporation Board of Directors Lisa Vaughn
More informationThe Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (and possible pitfalls)
The Newsletter of Greenwoods Construction and Engineering Group Issue 18 Spring 2013 The Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (and possible pitfalls), Contact us T 01733 887755
More informationA Summary of Construction Cases in 2012
A Summary of Construction Cases in 2012 Formation of Contract Specialist Insulation Limited v Pro-Duct (Fife) Limited Each party proceeds on the basis that their standard form of contract regulates the
More informationHong Kong International Arbitration Centre ADJUDICATION RULES
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ADJUDICATION RULES Table of Contents Contents Page No. 1. Introductory Notes. P.3 2. Section I Object and Administration of Adjudication.. P.4 3. Section II The
More informationBefore: MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD Between: BECK INTERIORS LIMITED - and - UK FLOORING CONTRACTORS LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC) Case No: HT-12-176 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Before: MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD - - - - - - - - - -
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationChallenging the Adjudicator s Decision
Jeremy Glover 1. Mr Justice Coulson, no doubt quite deliberately, noted in 2007 that: With challenges based on jurisdiction and natural justice diffi cult (although not of course impossible) to establish
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationBefore: MRS JUSTICE O'FARRELL DBE Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2395 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-2017-000173 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A
More informationMOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY
MOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY September 27, 2016 2016 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Presenters Bart Bassett Silicon Valley Tracy Evlogidis London Matthew Howse London Humberto Padilla Gonzalez Houston Eleanor
More informationThe prima facie meaning of the most commonly used endeavours clauses. The drafting of endeavours clauses. A QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION
ENDEAVOURS CLAUSES STRIVING FOR CERTAINTY Simon Willis, Harry Denlegh-Maxwell and Rebecca Dipple of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (UK) LLP explain the construction of commonly used endeavours clauses
More informationBEGINNING A DEAL: NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS AND LETTERS OF INTENT
BEGINNING A DEAL: NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS AND LETTERS OF INTENT Robert Dickey October 17, 2017 2016 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Topics Covered Initial Considerations Contents of a Confidentiality Agreement
More informationCompany Policies CHEMIDOSE LIMITED. Chemical dosing specialists
Company Policies CHEMIDOSE LIMITED Chemical dosing specialists Unit 1 Centre 2000 St.Michael s Road Sittingbourne Kent ME10 3DZ Tel:01795 425169 www.chemidose.co.uk Chemidose Policies, Terms and Conditions
More informationFreedom of Information Act Request: Mobile Biometric Devices and Applications
51 LOUISIANA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001.2113 TELEPHONE: +1.202.879.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.202.626.1700 Direct Number: (202) 879-3437 smlevine@jonesday.com VIA E-MAIL: ICE-FOIA@DHS.GOV U.S. Immigration
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11360-2015 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and JEAN ETIENNE ATTALA Respondent Before: Mr D. Glass (in
More informationCPR Part 36 Offers Problems in Practice. by Dov Ohrenstein
CPR Part 36 Offers Problems in Practice by Dov Ohrenstein It is well known that CPR Part 36 provides a useful mechanism by which parties are incentivised to make and accept without prejudice save as to
More informationENGLISH LAW CONTRACTS POST-BREXIT:
DISPUTE RESOLUTION This is the seventh in our series of contract disputes practical guides, designed to provide clients with practical guidance on some key issues that feature in disputes relating to commercial
More informationConstruction & Engineering News
Construction & Engineering News Spring 2010 When will the Court pierce the adjudicator s veil? - Geoffrey Osborne Limited v Atkins Rail Limited [2009] (TCC) Enforcing the Oracle SG South Ltd v Swan Yard
More informationBREXIT: THE WAY FORWARD FOR APPLICABLE LAW AND CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS?
APPLICABLE LAW AND CIVIL JURISDICTION Both the and the have now published short papers setting out their positions on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. A comparison of the two perhaps
More informationBe Careful and Honest in What You Say: Fraud in Arbitration
Be Careful and Honest in What You Say: Fraud in Arbitration by Vincent Moran QC Vincent Moran QC acted for the successful Claimant in Celtic v Knowles, the first reported decision under the 1996 Arbitration
More information