The boundary between construction and rectification, where does it lie and does it matter?
|
|
- Todd Potter
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The boundary between construction and rectification, where does it lie and does it matter? Or: The temptation to try and slip favourable terms in during drafting. Guy Adams, St John s Chambers Published on 24 th June When I was asked for a topic for this session in early March this year, I perhaps did not appreciate just how topical or difficult this subject is. I have been dealing with a case that raises some of these issues and I therefore thought it would be relatively easy to expand some of my submissions into a talk. Between then and now the Chancellor, Terence Etherton, has given an important speech on rectification: Contract Formation and the Fog of Rectification 1 in which he has said that this area of jurisprudence is "marred by uncertainty and complexity and needs the attention of the Supreme Court". I therefore doubt that I am going to make matters much clearer, but I hope I can at least offer you a viewpoint. 2. This talk is concerned with the boundary between construction or interpretation and rectification. As to whether it matters, the short answer is yes for the reasons recently given by Lord Neuberger in the rectification of wills case Marley v Rawlings [2015] AC 129 at [40]: " At first sight, it might seem to be a rather dry question whether a particular approach is one of interpretation or rectification. However, it is by no means simply an academic issue of categorisation. If it is a question of interpretation, then the document in question has, and has always had, the meaning and effect 1 24th April available at Page 1 of 12
2 as determined by the court, and that is the end of the matter. On the other hand, if it is a question of rectification, then the document, as rectified, has a different meaning from that which it appears to have on its face, and the court would have jurisdiction to refuse rectification or to grant it on terms (e.g. if there had been delay, change of position, or C third party reliance)." 3. In other words rectification is a discretionary equitable remedy, whereas interpretation is not. What then is construction or interpretation? 4. Again per Lord Neuberger in Marley v Rawlings at [19]: " When interpreting a contract, the court is concerned to find the intention of the party or parties, and it does this by identifying the meaning of the relevant words, (a) in the light of (i) the natural and ordinary meaning of those words, (ii) the overall purpose of the document, (iii) any other provisions of the document, (iv) the facts known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed, and (v) common sense, but (b) ignoring subjective evidence of any party's intentions." 5. This passage naturally refers to the well known principles of establishing the meaning and effect of a document, as any questions of rectification strictly only arise in the context of documents. Rectification is only concerned with correcting mistakes in documents and involves '"correcting a written instrument which, by a mistake in verbal expression, does not accurately reflect the [parties'] true agreement": Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia A SpA (The Nai Genova and The Nai Superba) [1984] 1 Lloyd!s Rep 353, 359' - per Lord Neuberger in Marley v Rawlings at [27]. 6. I do however think it is key to an understanding of this area to bear in mind that the process of interpretation or construction is not limited to documents. Indeed it is perhaps rather loose language to describe the process of interpretation or construction as determining the meaning and effect of a document at all. Rather, for reasons I will expand on, it is a process by which the intentions of the parties are deduced from their words and actions. This is because it is the promises, which the parties intended to be bound by, which the court enforces, not the document itself. Such promises are made by persons and merely recorded in documents. 7. Indeed there is generally no requirement that a contract be reduced into writing at all, unless there are applicable statutory limitations on the effect Page 2 of 12
3 of the parties' agreement at law, if it is not recorded or concluded in a particular manner. 8. Per Halsbury's Laws the most commonly accepted definition of a contract is "a promise or set of promises which the law will enforce" - Pollock Principles of Contract. It is a question of fact as to whether the parties have reached an agreement with the intention of creating legal relations. The effect in law of their agreement is a question of the construction or interpretation of their agreement. 9. In considering whether the parties have reached an agreement and when determining what the parties have agreed, the court is concerned with "what an objective reasonable observer would believe was the effect of what the parties to the contract, or alleged contract, communicated to each other by words and actions, as assessed in their context: see e g Smith v E Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, 607." - per Lord Neuberger in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corpn and others [2013] 2 AC 337 at para The parties may not in fact be ad idem, indeed very often may not be in subjective agreement, rather will be taken to have agreed what the parties objectively appear to have agreed. Per Lord Blackburn in of Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607: "I apprehend that if one of the parties intends to make a contract on one set of terms, and the other intends to make a contract on another set of terms, or, as it is sometimes expressed, if the parties are not ad idem, there is no contract, unless the circumstances are such as to preclude one of the parties from denying that he has agreed to the terms of the other. The rule of law is that stated in Freeman v. Cooke (1). If, whatever a man's real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party's terms." 11. A contract can be concluded in a variety of ways orally or partly orally and partly in writing or by an exchange of documents or the signature of a document. As part of its objective exercise the court will look at the communications between the parties - i.e. those that "crossed the line" - that are not mere negotiations, but which were objectively intended by the parties to form part of their agreement. Page 3 of 12
4 12. If the parties have appeared to have recorded their agreement in writing there is a strong implication or presumption that the parties intended to record all the terms of their contract in writing - per Lord Russell of Killowen CJ in Gillespie Bros & Co v Cheney, Eggar & Co [1896] 2 QB 59 at 62 - and a court of law will require some persuading that that was not the parties intention, but it is strictly not conclusive, logically even if there is an all agreement clause. If satisfied that the writing is not complete or even does not represent what was actually agreed, then as part of the process of construction, the court can determine what were the true terms of the agreement and what was their meaning and effect. 13. This is not a process of rectification, but rather of construction. A good example is Thinc Group v Armstrong and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1227, where it was held at first instance that that the oral explanation of the agreement amounted to a contractual warranty that overrode the express terms of the agreement. In the Court of Appeal Rix LJ held that it was ultimately a question of construction of the contract taking account of both the oral exchanges and the writing, so that on the true construction of the contract the express written term could not be relied upon as forming part of that contract. 14. In all cases the court is concerned to determine the meaning and effect of the contract, using its strict meaning, namely the terms by which the parties intended to be bound. 15. Further as a matter of logic the parties agreement must precede, even if only instantaneously, the recording of the agreement. When a party places his signature on a document recording the terms he is, on the face of it, generally signifying that the writing accurately records the terms with which he or she is in agreement (leaving corporations on one side for the moment) and which strictly form the contract and is thereby communicating his acceptance of such terms. Furthermore he or she is carrying the agreement into effect by ensuring that the terms of the contract are accurately recorded in writing. 16. If either or both the parties is making a mistake because the writing does not record what the parties intended to agree, then there are two possibilities either there was no contract because the parties were not in fact ad idem (when viewed objectively they were in fact at cross-purposes) or the parties objectively intended to reach an agreement on certain terms, which includes the situation where due to their words and conduct the parties must be taken to have intended such an agreement. The Page 4 of 12
5 parties signatures indicate the acceptance of such terms (believing them to be accurately recorded in the document) even if the writing is wrong and may need to be corrected. 17. If the writing is wrong and one of the parties afterwards seeks to rely on it as a true record of the agreement to his advantage, then in effect he is seeking to use it as an instrument of fraud. If the true agreement can be proved in a court of law, then this can be prevented by a process of construction. Indeed as between the original parties, it will often not matter (except for the purpose of avoiding disputes) whether the writing is correct or not, as they both presumably know what was agreed and if necessary the terms and effect of the agreement can be finally determined in proceedings between them. It may however be difficult in a court of law, without going into all the evidence which is admissible in a court of equity, to prove that the terms, which the parties intended to be bound by, were not the terms set down in writing and the document may need to be rectified in order to prevent such unconscionable conduct. 18. Looked at in this way, it may be that some of the debate in the 20th Century cases as to whether it was necessary for there to be an antecedent contract in order to obtain rectification or whether proof of the terms upon which the parties objectively intended to contract was sufficient appears somewhat arid, as the terms upon which the parties intended to contract, if sufficiently certain, are the parties contract in its disembodied sense, which should have been recorded in the document. 19. It is trite that a court determines the terms of a contract on the basis of what the parties intended them to be having regard to the totality of the admissible evidence, as pointed out by Lord Moulton in Heilbut Symons & Co v. Buckleton [1913] AC 30 at It is not therefore obvious that James V-C was that wide of the mark in Mackenzie v. Coulson (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 368 when he said: "Courts of Equity do not rectify contracts; they may and do rectify instruments purporting to have been made in pursuance of the terms of contracts. But it is always necessary for a plaintiff to show that there was an actual concluded contract antecedent to the instrument which is sought to be rectified; and that such contract is inaccurately represented in the instrument. In this instance there never was any contract other than this policy which the plaintiffs have so signed 2 following Holt CJ in Crosse v Gardner (1689) Cart. 90 Page 5 of 12
6 It is impossible for this court to rescind or alter a contract with reference to the terms of the negotiation which preceded it." In other words a document necessarily records a prior agreement, but in that case there was no evidence that it was anything other than the terms contained in the document. 21. Or even Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy M.R. in Lovell and Christmas Ltd. v. Wall 104 L.T. 85 (described in Jocelyne v Nissen as a lost cause) at p. 88: "The essence of rectification is to bring the document which was expressed and intended to be in pursuance of a prior agreement into harmony with that prior agreement. Indeed, it may be regarded as a branch of the doctrine of specific performance. It presupposes a prior contract, and it requires proof that, by common mistake, the final completed instrument as executed fails to give proper effect to the prior contract." If it is part of the parties' agreement that the terms should be recorded in writing, but the document fails to do that, then it is in a sense carrying the agreement into effect to correct the document. 22. It is perhaps better expressed by Buckley L.J at p. 93: "In ordering rectification the court does not rectify contracts, but what it rectifies is the erroneous expression of contracts in documents. For rectification it is not enough to set about to find out what one or even both of the parties to the contract intended. What you have got to find out is what intention was communicated by one side to the other, and with what common intention and common agreement they made their bargain." 23. Any argument that it was necessary to have to prove a prior enforceable contract, was laid to rest in Jocelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, where it was argued that even though it was common ground that the parties had expressly been in agreement on one aspect of the matter, which was not recorded in the writing, then as there was no prior enforceable contract there could be no rectification. The argument had originally arisen in cases concerned with corporate bodies, which it was provided by statute could only contract by affixing a seal to a document, but had been rejected in Shipley UDC v Bradford Corporation [1936] 1 Ch 375. There the basis of the argument was that as the corporation could only contract by affixing its seal to a document, logically there could not be a prior enforceable contract. Clauson J accepted the logic of that position, but in obiter remarks rejected it on the basis that he was concerned to discover Page 6 of 12
7 what the parties intended and whether the document accorded with their intentions, or at least the intention that would be attributed to the corporation through the acts of its agents as a corporation cannot of course act by itself. Shipley was followed in Crane v. Hegeman-Harris Co. Inc. [1939] 1 All E.R. 662; [1939] 4 All E.R. 68 and in Jocelyne v. Nissen, after a full review of the authorities, it was confirmed that it was not necessary to find that there was a prior enforceable contract at law. Rather only that there was convincing proof that there was a common continuing intention in regard to a particular aspect of the agreement which continued up to the time the formal document was executed. Further that there had to be an outward expression of that accord. This further requirement, which has been the subject of some criticism, was taken from Denning LJ's judgment in the "horsebeans" and "feveroles" case, Frederick E. Rose (London) Ltd. v. William H. Pim Jnr. & Co. Ltd. [1953] 2 Q.B As Denning LJ put it: "It is not necessary that all the formalities of the contract should have been executed so as to make it enforceable at law (see Shipley Urban District Council v. Bradford Corporation [1936] Ch. 375); but, formalities apart, there must have been a concluded contract.... There could be no certainty at all in business transactions if a party who had entered into a firm contract could afterwards turn around and claim to have it rectified on the ground that the parties intended something different. He is allowed to prove, if he can, that they agreed something different [Denning L.J.'s italics]: see Lovell & Christmas v. Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 85, per Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R., and per Buckley L.J. at pp. 88, 93, but not that they intended something different." 24. More recently it has been held by Mummery LJ in Munt v Beasley [2006] EWCA Civ 370 that "an outward expression of accord" is not a strict legal requirement for rectification and the trend in recent cases to treat the expression "more as an evidential factor " and there is considerable academic debate as to whether rectification ought to be available if both parties subjectively intend to contract in a particular way, but do not communicate their intentions. 25. As matters stand, however, Denning LJ's approach was affirmed by Lord Hoffmann in obiter comments in Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101 that "the question is what an objective observer would have thought the intentions of the parties to be" and not what their subjective intentions were - at [60], citing a passage from Denning LJ's judgment in Rose v Pim: " You look at their outward acts, that is, at what they said or wrote to one another in coming to their agreement, and then Page 7 of 12
8 compare it with the document which they have signed. If you can predicate with certainty what their contract was, and that it is, by a common mistake, wrongly expressed in the document, then you rectify the document; but nothing less will suffice." 26. It has been suggested that Lord Hoffmann's comments are not binding in lower courts and that the issue can be revisited, particularly in light of the judgments in the Court of Appeal in Britoil plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc [1994] CLC 561 in which Hoffmann LJ dissented. But for all practical purposes and unless and until the Supreme Court re-state the law, it appears that Chartbrook should now be taken to be authoritative. 27. This is particularly so as in Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 1333, Etherton LJ held that the parties were right to proceed on the basis that Chartbrook correctly stated the law at [78] and Lord Neuberger MR agreed with Etherton LJ's analysis of the law at [227], even though Etherton LJ was in the minority as to the outcome of the appeal and Lord Neuberger expressed the view that Lord Hoffmann's analysis might need to be " may have to be reconsidered or at least refined" - at [195]. 28. In Chartbrook Lord Hoffmann at [48] approved Peter Gibson LJ's succinct summary of the requirements for rectification for mutual mistake in Swainland Builders Ltd v Freehold Properties Ltd [2002] 2 EGLR 71, 74 at [33] "The party seeking rectification must show that: (1) the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified; (2) there was an outward expression of accord; (3) the intention continued at the time of the execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; (4) by mistake, the instrument did not reflect that common intention." 29. In Daventry Etherton LJ slightly re-phrased the requirements as follows: " (1) the parties had a common continuing intention, whether or not amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified; (2) which existed at the time of execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; (3) such common continuing intention to be established objectively, that is to say by reference to what an objective observer would have thought the intentions of the parties to be; and (4) by mistake the instrument did not reflect that common intention. " Page 8 of 12
9 30. He then went on to give four factual examples at [85] - [88]: "The first one is where the parties subjectively and objectively (that is to say in their communications passing between them or crossing the line ) are in agreement but the formal documentation as executed fails to give effect to that prior agreement. The documentation should be rectified to bring it into line (retrospectively) with their prior accord. Subject to such matters as delay and prejudice to any third party interests, there is no good reason not to do so. The second scenario is where the parties never subjectively had the same intention, but the communications crossing the line show that objectively there was a common continuing intention at all relevant times prior to the execution of the final documentation, and the formal documentation reflected those prior communications. In that situation, whether or not rectified, one or other of the parties will be bound by a contract which they did not subjectively intend to enter into. It is right that the claimant should not be entitled to rectification to bring the documentation into line with a subjective intention and belief that was never communicated to the defendant and to which the defendant never agreed. The third scenario is where there was objectively a prior accord, but one of the parties then subjectively changed their mind, but objectively did not bring that change of mind to the attention of the other party. It is right that, if the documentation gives effect to the objective prior accord, the formal documentation should not be rectified to reflect the changed but uncommunicated subjective intention; and if the documentation as executed reflects the changed but uncommunicated subjective intention, it should be rectified to give effect to the objective prior accord. To do otherwise would be to force on one of the parties a contract which they never intended to make on the basis of an uncommunicated intention and belief. The fourth scenario is where there was objectively a prior accord (whether or not a subjective common intention), and one of the parties then objectively changed their mind, that is to say objectively made apparent to the other party that they intended to enter into the transaction on different terms. Leaving aside rectification for unilateral mistake (the requirements for which are quite different), it is right that, if the documentation as executed gives effect to the objectively indicated change of mind, a claim for rectification to give effect to the earlier prior accord should be refused. Once again, to do otherwise would force on the defendant a contract which they never intended to make on the basis of the claimant s uncommunicated subjective intention to enter into a contract on Page 9 of 12
10 the basis of the original accord notwithstanding the defendant s objectively communicated change of mind." 31. On the facts of the case Etherton LJ considered that there was no case for rectification because when the communications between the parties' solicitors when drafting the agreement were looked at objectively, even if there had been a prior different accord, then the parties had by their agents expressly agreed the term that was included in the final agreement, as a variation of the prior accord, even if that was inconsistent with DDC's understanding of the intended contract, and the parties were therefore bound by it. 32. Toulson LJ and Lord Neuberger however held that an objective observer would have concluded that the parties solicitors, who were only instructed to carry into effect the parties' prior accord, were mistaken and the contract should therefore be rectified. 33. In effect the difference between the majority and minority was as to whether an objective observer would have concluded that the negotiations on this particular aspect of the contract were concluded at the time of the prior accord or were continued subsequently by the solicitors. If the latter, then the prior accord was irrelevant as merely forming part of the negotiations, if the former then, on the basis that there were no further negotiations, then the prior accord continued to represent the parties' agreement until the document was signed. 34. The majority also held that this was a case of mutual mistake because DDH's actions were to be considered objectively and the fact that the knowledge of DDH's agent Mr Roebuck, knowing DDC's understanding of the prior accord, would be attributed to the company, meant that DDH were effectively estopped from denying that the prior accord was as DDC understood it, even if it could be read two different ways - see per Toulson LJ at [178] and Lord Neuberger at [202]. 35. It has been suggested that Daventry should properly be analysed as a case of unilateral mistake because the directing minds of the company understood the prior accord to mean the opposite of what it objectively meant on the advice of Mr Roebuck. The better view is however that such subjective understanding is always irrelevant to questions of rectification, which always pre-supposes a prior agreement or contract. Further that the parties subjective understanding of the situation will only ever be relevant to questions as to whether one of the parties will be Page 10 of 12
11 estopped from denying the terms of the parties' agreement in equity, where a court of equity is unable to find that the parties were in fact in agreement, and/or whether the court should grant the discretionary remedy of rectification or should only do so on terms. Indeed the principles of unilateral mistake are probably best analysed as the application of the principles of equitable estoppel. As Sedley LJ pointed out in George Wimpy UK Ltd v. VI Construction Ltd [2005] BLR 135 at [65] "sharp practice has no defined boundary" and on well established principles such estoppels are likely to arise when a duty to speak arises in circumstances according to an objective standard of honest and responsible conduct 3. As Lord Neuberger pointed out in Daventry at [194] rectification is an equitable remedy whose origins lie in conscience and fair dealing. 36. In conclusion, both courts of law and equity are concerned by the process of construction and the remedy of rectification to give effect to the parties' true agreement. If the document simply does not reflect the parties agreement objectively determined, then one would expect both courts of equity and law to reach the same conclusion as to the proper construction of the agreement and for a court of equity to intervene to enforce the parties agreement that the terms should be properly recorded, if it is necessary for the future to correct the documents - e.g. if the documents are documents of title that will be relied on for many years to come or 3rd parties need to be able to rely on the stated terms. 37. If however there is a suspicion that the contract objectively determined does not reflect the parties true agreement, a court of equity will examine a wider class of material and look at all the circumstances in order to determine whether the parties truly reached any agreement at all or if they should be taken to have done so, what their true agreement was or, perhaps more importantly, should be taken to be and grant appropriate relief, including if necessary rectification of any relevant document, if reliance upon the parties' strict legal rights would produce an unconscionable result. 38. In any case, however, there is an evidential presumption that, if the parties have on the face of it deliberately reduced their agreement into writing, then the court will require convincing proof that the agreement either does not include all the terms or contains a mistake. Per Simonds J in Crane v. Hegeman-Harris Co. Inc. [1939] 1 All E.R. 662 at 664-5: 3 per Lord Wilberforce in Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890 at 903 Page 11 of 12
12 "That is particularly the case where one finds prolonged negotiations between the parties eventually assuming the shape of a formal instrument in which they have been advised by their respective skilled legal advisers. The assumption is very strong in such a case that the instrument does represent their real intention, and it must be only upon proof which Lord Eldon, I think, in a somewhat picturesque phrase described as irrefragable that the court can act. I would rather, I think, say that the court can only act if it is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the instrument does not represent their common intention, and is further satisfied as to what their common intention was. For let it be clear that it is not sufficient to show that the written instrument does not represent their common intention unless positively also one can show what their common intention was." Guy Adams St John s Chambers guy.adams@stjohnschambers.co.uk 24 th June 2015 Page 12 of 12
Swings and Roundabouts in the law of Rectification
Swings and Roundabouts in the law of Rectification 1. One consequence of a global financial downturn is that contracts, including property contracts and especially contracts requiring valuation, have to
More informationDoes the law need to be rectified? Chartbrook revisited
The Chancery Bar Association 2013 ANNUAL LECTURE Given by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Patten Does the law need to be rectified? Chartbrook revisited 1. No-one seriously doubts that if the law is to have any
More informationCONTRACT FORMATION AND THE FOG OF RECTIFICATION 1. Terence Etherton 2
CONTRACT FORMATION AND THE FOG OF RECTIFICATION 1 Terence Etherton 2 Rectification of contracts is not, on the face of it, a likely hot topic for legal interest. The speech of Lord Hoffmann in the House
More informationLord Toulson gives the TECBAR Annual Lecture
Lord Toulson gives the TECBAR Annual Lecture Does Rectification require Rectifying? 31 October 2013 Rectification is an equitable means of correcting the text of a written form of contract or other legal
More informationUnder construction: drafting and interpretation of land options
Under construction: drafting and interpretation of land options Charlie Newington-Bridges, St John s Chambers Published on 27 September 2016 Land Options Introduction 1. In H&S Developments v Chant [2016]
More informationWhy did the MF/1 terms not apply? The judge had concluded that the MF/1 terms did not apply because:
United Kingdom Letters of intent and contract formation RTS Flexible Systems Limited (Respondents) v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production) (Appellants) [2010] UKSC 14C Chris Hill and
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 informationJUDGMENT. Rolle Family and Company Limited (Appellant) v Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas)
Michaelmas Term [2017] UKPC 35 Privy Council Appeal No 0095 of 2015 JUDGMENT Rolle Family and Company Limited (Appellant) v Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas) From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of
More informationBoundaries And The Interpretation Of Conveyances: Myths And Legends
Boundaries And The Interpretation Of Conveyances: Myths And Legends The aim of this seminar is to examine a number of commonly held misconceptions about boundary interpretation the myths - and to look
More informationThe clause (ACAS Form COT-3) provided:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS The leading case is Bank of Credit and Commerce International SAI v Ali [2001] UKHL 8; [2002] 1 AC 251. It was also an extreme case where the majority of the House
More informationUNILATERAL MISTAKE IN THE ENGLISH COURTS: REASSERTING THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2009] 226 234 UNILATERAL MISTAKE IN THE ENGLISH COURTS: REASSERTING THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH Statoil A.S.A. v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P. (The Harriette N )
More informationSection 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Katie Hooper St John s Chambers Friday, 17 th June 2011 Section 2: Contracts for the sale etc of land to be made by signed writing SS
More informationRECTIFICATION IN PROPERTY LAW
RECTIFICATION IN PROPERTY LAW - practical guidance for litigators A paper presented to The Property Litigation Association Autumn Training Day at the Royal Society of Medicine on 2 October 2007 by Julian
More informationThe road to Hell is paved with good intentions: The developing law of rectification and mistake Received: 5th May, 2006
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions: The developing law of rectification and mistake Received: 5th May, 2006 Carolyn Saunders is a pensions partner and head of the Pensions Group at law firm
More informationRectification Wills and Trusts
Rectification Wills and Trusts Amanda Hardy QC Tax Chambers 15 Old Square Lincoln s Inn Recent cases: Rectification of a will Marley v Rawlings and another [2014] UKSC A husband and wife each executed
More informationTHE IMPACT OF PRE-AND POST-CONTRACTUAL CONDUCT ON CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION
THE IMPACT OF PRE-AND POST-CONTRACTUAL CONDUCT ON CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION 1. Where there is a dispute as to the meaning of a provision in a contract, the role of the court is to determine the meaning
More informationUnjust enrichment? Bank secures equitable charge where it failed to get a legal charge: Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus [2015] UKSC 66
Unjust enrichment? Bank secures equitable charge where it failed to get a legal charge: Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus [2015] UKSC 66 1. The decision of the Supreme Court in Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd
More informationVTB Capital - Supreme Court Decision
VTB Capital - Supreme Court Decision Publication - 17/07/2013 What are the legal consequences of "piercing the corporate veil" of a company? If it is appropriate to do so, will the controller of the company
More informationContentious Probate Update. Is want of knowledge and approval effectively a. dead duck following Gill v. Woodall?
Contentious Probate Update Is want of knowledge and approval effectively a dead duck following Gill v. Woodall? The Liberal View by Guy Adams, St John s Chambers (Delivered as one side of a debate on the
More informationContracts 2 Rose Vassel 2012 CONTRACTS 2 LAWS1072. Rose Vassel
CONTRACTS 2 LAWS1072 Rose Vassel 1 INCORPORATION BY A COURSE OF DEALINGS This is justified by the idea that by continuing to deal with the party seeking to impose those terms, they have demonstrated a
More informationContinuing to act after negligence rights, problems and consequences
Continuing to act after negligence rights, problems and consequences Leslie Blohm QC, St John s Chambers Published on 29 th April 2014 What is the scope of this talk? 1. With the best will in the world,
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 informationPaper for Chancery Bar Seminar in Isle of Man KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL WHAT TO LOOK FOR?
Paper for Chancery Bar Seminar in Isle of Man KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL WHAT TO LOOK FOR? Alexander Learmonth New Square Chambers, 12 New Square, Lincoln s Inn For a will to be valid, the formal requirements
More informationSection 112 of the HGCR Act is set out below, with the amendments which will be introduced under the LDEDC Act shown in bold:
SUSPENSION OF WORK By Peter Sheridan Introduction The remedy of suspension of work for non-payment or late payment is likely to be of increased interest as the credit crunch and the recession continue
More informationINTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS ISBN 978-98-3519-11-8 Author: Hamid Ibrahim Binding: Softcover/Extent: 532 pp Publication Price: MYR 210.00 The law is stated as of February 1, 2008 PRINCIPLES & CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION
More informationExpectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel?
Expectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel? Elizabeth Fitzgerald discusses this controversial topic in the wake of the recent decision of the
More informationRIGHTS TO TERMINATE A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT SUCCESSFUL USE AND LIABILITY FOR MISUSE. David Thomas QC and Matthew Finn Keating Chambers.
RIGHTS TO TERMINATE A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT SUCCESSFUL USE AND LIABILITY FOR MISUSE David Thomas QC and Matthew Finn Keating Chambers 18 January 2018 INTRODUCTION It is often the case that one party to a
More informationLITIGATION PRIVILEGE THE DOMINANT PURPOSE TEST- THE POST- ENRC LANDSCAPE.
LITIGATION PRIVILEGE THE DOMINANT PURPOSE TEST- THE POST- ENRC LANDSCAPE. The Court of Appeal is to consider the ENRC 1 judgment later this year. In that case Andrew J held that an investigation into possible
More informationIndexed as: Holdings Ltd. v. Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia (B.C.C.A.)
Indexed as: 6781427 Holdings Ltd. v. Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia (B.C.C.A.) Between 6781427 Holdings Ltd. doing business as Duke's Gourmet Cookies, Petitioner, (Respondent),
More informationAdverse Possession Update
Adverse Possession Update Alex Troup St John s Chambers 8 th June 2010 The old law Unregistered land: the "old law" applies, i.e. 12 years adverse possession gives squatter possessory title Registered
More informationBARRY ALLAN CONTACT PART II. Introduction 1. OBJECTIVE THEORY OF CONTRACT 2. A MODEL OF CONTRACT
BARRY ALLAN CONTACT PART II Introduction 1. OBJECTIVE THEORY OF CONTRACT We use the objective principle to decide whether there has been an agreement, consideration and intention to be bound between the
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE Between : (1) C1 (2) C2 (3) C3. - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1893 (Comm) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Case No: CL-2015-000762 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29/07/2016
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. Before: The Hon. Justice Nolan Bereaux. Mr Gaston Benjamin for Plaintiff Mr Carlton George for Defendants
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA. NO.1644/99 BETWEEN ENWARD ANTHONY ISAAC Plaintiff AND ANTHONY DEO GANESS & MARCINA MARCIA GANESS Defendants Before: The Hon. Justice Nolan Bereaux Appearances:
More informationAPPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A
* 41/93 Commissioner s File: CIS/674/1994 SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW DECISION OF THE SOCIAL
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE LEGGATT Between : LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES. - and
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 3292 (QB) Case No: QB/2012/0301 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE KINGSTON COUNTY COURT HER HONOUR JUDGE JAKENS 2KT00203 Royal
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS Introduction 1. Traditionally, a central plank of an accountant s corporate work has been carrying out the audit. However, over the years the profession s role has
More informationBefore: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Case No: B53Y J995 Court No. 60 Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 26 th February 2016 Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY B E T W
More informationJUDGMENT. BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2015] UKSC 39 On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 1513 JUDGMENT BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Gabriel (Appellant) before Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Carnwath Lord Toulson Lord
More informationEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: AGENCY WORKERS: James v Greenwich Council and subsequent cases
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: AGENCY WORKERS: James v Greenwich Council and subsequent cases Agency workers in the UK face a number of difficulties due to their vulnerable position in the job market. They have no
More informationTHE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE FOLLOWING. Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
THE ILLEGALITY DEFENCE FOLLOWING Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 Ronelp Marine Ltd & others v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd & another [2016] EWHC 2228 (Ch) at [36]: 36 Counsel for STX argued that once
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND CROCKAGARRAN WIND FARM LIMITED. -v- ARTHUR McCRORY AND MARY McCRORY
Neutral Citation No: [2012] NICh 30 Ref: DEE8619 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 11/10/2012 (subject to editorial corrections) DEENY J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN
More informationCapturing the IT customer s requirements: a shared responsibility
Page 1 of 5 18th BILETA Conference:Controlling Information in the Online Environment April, 2003 QMW, London Capturing the IT customer s requirements: a shared responsibility Ruth Atkins University of
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 1023 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC09CO1648 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11/05/2010 Before : MR JUSTICE PETER
More informationUNITED BANK OF KUWAIT PLC PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT - v - SAHIB & ORS DEFENDANTS
United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib & Ors [1996] EWCA Civ 1308 (02 February 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ewca/civ/1996/1308.html Cite as: [1996] 3 WLR 372, [1996] EWCA Civ 1308, [1997] Ch 107,
More informationWaiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications
1 Waiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications Adjudication Forum 13 November 2012 Max Tonkin The Pareto Principal Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed in 1906 that 80%
More informationShortfalls on Sale. Toby Watkin
Shortfalls on Sale Toby Watkin 1. In this paper I wish to discuss some issues and considerations which arise when it is expected that there will be a shortfall upon a sale of the mortgaged property following
More informationVIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463
1 VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463 High Court (in Chambers) Kaplan, J. Construction List No. 4 of 1992 6 March 1992, 27 May 1992 Kaplan, J. This matter raises
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 informationJUDGMENT. R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
Trinity Term [2013] UKSC 49 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1383 JUDGMENT R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationSkanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2006] ABC.L.R. 11/22
CA on appeal from QBD (Mr Justice Ramsey) before Neuberger LJ; Richards LJ; Leveson LJ. 22 nd November 2006 LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER: 1. This is an appeal from the decision of Ramsey J on the preliminary
More informationCONTRACT LAW. Elements of a Contract
CONTRACT LAW Contracts: Types and Sources in Australia CONTRACT: An agreement concerning promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations upon
More informationInghilterra e Galles High Court
Inghilterra e Galles High Court High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Lightman, 6 febbraio 2003 [Abacus Trust Co (Isle of Man) and another v Barr and others] Introduction 1. I have before me an application
More informationIN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2011 BETWEEN MAY JOSEPHINE HUMPHREY Appellant AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO NATIONAL PETROLEUM MARKETING COMPANY LIMITED
More informationSaunders v Caerphilly County Borough Council
Saunders v Caerphilly County Borough Council Philip Robson, Pupil, St John s Chambers Philip Robson provides a case analysis of John Richard Saunders v Caerphilly County Borough Council. Published on 26th
More informationRegistration Make-Believe and Forgery Swift 1 st v Chief Land Registrar
Registration Make-Believe and Forgery Swift 1 st v Chief Land Registrar As was perhaps inevitable following the High Court decisions in Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings ([2013] EWHC 86 (Ch); [2013] 1 P.
More informationConsidering Contract Termination Under English Common Law
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Considering Contract Termination Under English
More informationCOMMENTARY. Introduction JONES DAY. particularly as to non-reliance, can be circumvented.
January 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY JPMorgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corporation, Part 2 Contractual Provisions: Their Effect on the Banker s Duty to Advise Introduction In this second part of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A. D., 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A. D., 2013 CLAIM NO. 104 OF 2013 BETWEEN (BYRON WARREN CLAIMANT ( (AND (SEABREEZE COMPANY LIMITED FIRST DEFENDANT ((In Receivership) (THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED SECOND DEFENDANT
More informationRIGHTS OF WAY AND PUBLIC FOOTPATHS BELIEF, INTENTION AND THE CAPACITY TO DEDICATE Stephen Whale
RIGHTS OF WAY AND PUBLIC FOOTPATHS BELIEF, INTENTION AND THE CAPACITY TO DEDICATE Stephen Whale 1. In this paper I intend briefly to discuss three topics which often arise in rights of way cases particularly
More informationBefore: MR A WILLIAMSON QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 1353 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-2017-000042 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A
More informationMutual Assent in Simple Contracts
Washington University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 January 1921 Mutual Assent in Simple Contracts E. A. Shepley Follow this and additional works at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of
More informationConditional Fee Agreements and Liens. Andrew Hogan
Conditional Fee Agreements and Liens Andrew Hogan Some years ago, at a solicitor-own client detailed assessment, I was told by my professional client that her policy was to obtain 75% of her fees on account
More informationThe Scope of Hybrid Public Authorities within the HRA 1998
[2004] JR 43 The Scope of Hybrid Public Authorities within the HRA 1998 Vikram Sachdeva* Supervisor in Administrative and Public Law, Trinity Hall, Cambridge; and Barrister, 39 Essex Street 1. The width
More informationA breach of contract occurs where a party does not comply with one or more of the terms of contract, express or implied.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Breach and Remedy Refer to Richards, P. Law of Contract Chapters 16-18 Uff, J. Construction Law 9 th Edition Chapter 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT A breach of contract occurs where
More informationContractual Interpretation: Do judges sometimes say one thing and do another? Canterbury University, Christchurch
Contractual Interpretation: Do judges sometimes say one thing and do another? Canterbury University, Christchurch 18 th October 2017 Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court Introduction 1. It is
More informationEnforceability of take-or-pay provisions in English law contracts resolved
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1164554 Enforceability of take-or-pay provisions in English law contracts resolved Ben Holland is a partner in the
More informationDECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
CH/571/2003 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER This is an appeal by Wolverhampton City Council ("the Council" ), brought with my leave, against a decision of the Wolverhampton Appeal Tribunal
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationEquitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment
Bond Law Review Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 8 1999 Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment Denis S. K Ong Bond University, denis_ong@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr
More informationLocal authorities and commercial contracts
Local authorities and commercial contracts Guy Adams, St John s Chambers 1. This is a very big subject. What I am not going to do is dive deep into the technicalities of the various procurement regimes,
More informationCompany Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 3 Company Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20 Burton B. C. Tait Follow this and additional works
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE ELIAS LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL and MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON. Between : ABDUL SALEEM KOORI
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 552 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) DEPUTY JUDGES McCARTHY AND ROBERTSON IA/04622/2014
More informationTIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC
705 TIME TO REVISIT FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE UK? GROUP JOSI REINSURANCE CO V UGIC Christopher D Bougen * There has been much debate in the United Kingdom over the last decade on whether the discretionary
More informationLiability for Injuries Caused by Dogs. Jonathan Owen
Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. This article addressed the liability for injuries caused by dogs, such as when a person is bitten, or knocked over by a dog. Such cases,
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER RULE K OF THE RULES OF THE BEFORE MR. CHARLES FLINT Q.C. SITTING AS A JOINTLY APPOINTED SOLE
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER RULE K OF THE RULES OF THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION BEFORE MR. CHARLES FLINT Q.C. SITTING AS A JOINTLY APPOINTED SOLE ARBITRATOR B E T W E E N: ASTON VILLA F.C. LIMITED
More informationHarry Fitzhugh v Anthony Fitzhugh
Page1 Harry Fitzhugh v Anthony Fitzhugh Case No: A3/2011/3117 Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 1 June 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 694 2012 WL 1933439 Before: Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Rimer and Lord
More informationJUDGMENT. R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
Easter Term [2014] UKSC 28 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1362 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationCanterbury Law Review [Vol
Canterbury Law Review [Vol. 1. 19811 REFORM OF PRIVITY introduction The doctrine of privity as laid down by the courts in the 19th century has long been the target of law reformers. As long ago as 1937
More informationAnti-suit Injunctions: Expanding Protection for Arbitration under English Law
169 Anti-suit Injunctions: Expanding Protection for Arbitration under English Law Jamie Maples and Tim Goldfarb* Introduction Where parties have agreed to resolve a particular dispute through arbitration,
More informationOVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW
OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW Liability is generally the key issue in regards to contractual disputes. Purpose of K law is to provide the rules which determine when one party is liable to another under or in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and :January 20,21,
ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL SUIT NO. SVGHCV211/1997 CONSOLIDATED WITH SUIT NO 212/1997 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ORMISTON KEN BOYEA HUDSON WILLIAMS Claimants and EASTERN CARIBBEAN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 19 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31049 of 2016) M/S. INOX WIND LTD.... Appellant Versus M/S THERMOCABLES
More informationB e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BLAIR Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ABDULLAH Claimant
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1771 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No. CO/11937/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Date:
More informationCITATION: Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2009] NSWSC 802
NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT CITATION: Firedam Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2009] NSWSC 802 JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S): 55037/2009 HEARING DATE(S): 24 July 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge Lindsley.
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 5 C2/2015/3947 & C2/2015/3948 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER) McCloskey J and UT Judge
More informationFriday 16 June 2017 Afternoon
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Friday 16 June 17 Afternoon A2 GCE LAW G6/01/RM Law of Contract Special Study SPECIAL STUDY MATERIAL *67034* Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES This is a clean
More informationIN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (EUROPE) (IN ADMINISTRATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT Before: Mr Justice David Richards A2/2015/3763 No 7942 of 2008 IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL
More informationLAW AND POLICY: Notes PLP, A legal rule dictates a result. A policy indicates a result; it may be departed from for good reason.
LAW AND POLICY: Notes PLP, 15.10.12 Raza Husain QC Matrix Chambers The difference between policy and law 1. A legal rule dictates a result. A policy indicates a result; it may be departed from for good
More informationLIMITATION running the defence
LIMITATION running the defence Oliver Moore, Guildhall Chambers 9 th June 2010 SECTION 11 (4) LIMITATION ACT 1980 the period applicable is three years from (a) date on which cause of action accrued; or
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 informationEnforcement of Foreign Judgments. The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency)
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The Usual Rules Apply (no exception for insolvency) The Supreme Court has just given judgment (24 October 2012) in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New
More informationJUDGMENT. Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) (Respondent) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited (Appellant)
Michaelmas Term [2017] UKSC 77 On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 661 JUDGMENT Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) (Respondent) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited (Appellant) before Lady Hale, President
More informationSabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
184 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2004] 3 SLR(R) Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [2004] SGHC 109 High Court Originating Motion No 31 of 2003 Judith Prakash
More informationFLOODING CLAIMS. By Andrew Williams. Last winter was the wettest since records began in It s a fair bet, then, that
By Andrew Williams Last winter was the wettest since records began in 1766. It s a fair bet, then, that there may be several flooding claims arising out of the events of that winter that have yet to be
More informationInterpretation of contracts - liberalism re-affirmed
Interpretation of contracts - liberalism re-affirmed In Re Sigma Finance Corporation (in administrative receivership) [2009] UKSC 2 Case analysis by Caroline Edwards Interpretation of contracts liberalism
More informationWithout Prejudice Communications
Without Prejudice Communications John Dickinson, St John s Chambers Published on 18th September, 2012 An update on which communications will be caught by the 'without prejudice' rule, the uncertain boundaries
More information6 Binding The Federal Government
6 Binding The Federal Government PART A: UNAUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIONS BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL 6.01 INTRODUCTION TO THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Justice
More informationWHEN ONE PURCHASER SIGNS THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND THE OTHER DOES NOT...
WHEN ONE PURCHASER SIGNS THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND THE OTHER DOES NOT... And indeed never authorised the co-purchaser to enter into a contract on her behalf without her consent, did not know that he was
More informationHENTHORN v FRASER [1892] 2 Ch. 27 (C.A. 1892)
HENTHORN v FRASER [1892] 2 Ch. 27 (C.A. 1892) In 1891 the Plaintiff was desirous of purchasing from the Huskisson Benefit Building Society certain houses in Flamank Street, Birkenhead. In May he, at the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO RPL (1991) LIMITED TEXACO (TRINIDAD) LIMITED JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO H.C.A. NO. S-807 OF 2003 BETWEEN RPL (1991) LIMITED PLAINTIFF AND TEXACO (TRINIDAD) LIMITED DEFENDANT Before the
More information