Articles

3PB Barristers' Commercial & Business Law Group brings you the Spring Edition of its Business & Commercial Legal Update Handout. 3PB Barristers' Commercial & Business Law Group brings you the Spring Edition of its Business & Commercial Legal Update Handout.

Topics
1.Incomplete contracts and implied terms: Wells v. Devani [2016] EWCA Civ 1106
2.Directions that override limitation provisions, when restoring a company to the register: Davy v Pickering [2017] EWCA Civ 30
3.Contract: remedies and loss of chance: Scottish Power v BP and McGill v SEM
4.Civil Procedure: costs and security for costs:
a.departing from costs budgets
b.proportionality of costs
c.security for costs
5.Insurance: declining cover because of failure to comply with notification clauses: Zurich Insurance PLC v Maccaferri Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1302
6.Civil Procedure: limitation defences and underpaid court fees Wells v Wood [2016]

3PB Barrister Matthew Cannings examines solicitors' duty to advise on the risk of other contractual meanings. If a solicitor correctly interprets a term within a contract, but fails to advise the client as to the risk of a counter-interpretation, has there been a breach of duty? And can there be a claim for damages?

Matthew Cannings (Call 2006) analyses the most recent contribution of the Court of Appeal to the question of solicitors' duties, in Balogun v Boyes Sutton & Perry (a firm) [2017] EWCA Civ 75.

Esther Lieu analyses I County Council v  TD & Others [2017] EWHC 379 (Fam) for Family Law Week and considers of the difference between care orders and supervision orders.

Esther Lieu analyses W v X (Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility) [2017] EUECJ C-499-15 for Family Law Week

3PB's Graham Gilbert on speeding convictions, avoiding them and their consequences. Graham Gilbert examines the recent sentencing decision of a man who used a device to avoid detection by police speed traps and asks if the penalty handed down was justified.

3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient) [2017] EWCA Civ 34, an appeal from the Court of Protection in which the appellant had been ordered to facilitate MM's return to this jurisdiction, the court having found (on a number of occasions) it to be in MM's best welfare interests to be cared for in the south west of England.

The parties compromised the appeal and the court was asked to approve a consent order, allowing the appeal, on the basis that (i) the order made had become otiose and (ii) it would be futile to subject the appellant to further coercive orders in the face of her continuing obduracy. Case remitted to the court of first instance for the proceedings to be concluded.

3PB Planning Barristers William Webster and Graeme Sampson summarise and analyse the government's Housing White Paper.

3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of AB (Surrogacy: Domicile) [2016] EWFC 63, an application for parental orders in relation to two children in which the court had to determine whether at least one of the applicants could be said to be 'domiciled' in the jurisdiction at the time of the application and at the time of making the order, as required by section 54(4)(b) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

3PB's Graham Gilbert examines the Attorney General's "imminent threat" criteria in the use of pre-emptive strikes. The Attorney General has said that the UK may use a preemptive attack against would-be terrorists in self-defence if an attack is "imminent". Graham Gilbert questions whether this is the best choice, given the difficulty the criminal courts have had with the concept.

Fact finding into serious injuries: Esther Lieu summarises A v W  and Others No 1 (Fact Finding) [2016] EWFC 64 for Family Law Week.

Colin McDevitt summarises a recent High Court decision which serves as a reminder to practitioners to not leave amendments to pleadings until the last minute.

3PB's Michelle Marnham considers the question of when a claim is brought for the purpose of limitation following on from the recent decision of Dixon v Radley House Partnership.