Commercial update: Substituted service of bankruptcy petitions

The High Court has ruled that permission to serve a bankruptcy petition by a substituted means cannot be given retrospectively. Rebecca Farrell analyses the decision Ardawa v. Uppal and Jordan [2019] EWHC 456 (Ch) and considers how it changes the law.

View Publication

Hugh-Guy Lorriman on Murdoch v Amesbury: Land Registry Adjudication and Jurisdiction

‘This material was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in Conveyancer and Property Lawyer Conv (2016) No. 4, at pp. 309-317, as ‘Murdoch v Amesbury: Land Registry adjudication and jurisdiction’, Conv (2016) 80 Conv., Issue 4 © Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors, and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers.

View Publication

Commercial update - Richard Whitehouse: Scope of duty in professional negligence: the return of “advice” versus “information”
In the first case on scope of duty in professional negligence since BPE Solicitors v. Hughes-Holland, has the Court of Appeal returned to the classic distinction between ‘advice’ and ‘information’ cases? Richard Whitehouse analyses the recent decision in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 40.

View Publication

Craig Ludlow analyses the latest employment cases, covering:

• Burden of proof in direct discrimination cases - Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 18
• Whistleblowing – failure to comply with legal obligation / public interest test - Ibrahim v HCA International Ltd UKEAT/0105/18/BA
• Equal Pay: Cross-establishment comparators - Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley & Others [2019] EWCA Civ 44
• Practice and Procedure – Case Management – Restricted Reporting Order / Anonymity - Y Ameyaw v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Services Ltd UKEAT/024418/LA
• Non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in employment contracts - Freshasia Foods Ltd v Jing Lu [2018] EWHC 3644 (Ch)
• Whistleblowing – protected disclosures – teachers – unfair dismissal – migrant work visas - K Gibson v (1) Hounslow London Borough Council (2) Crane Park Primary School UKEAT/0033/18/BA
• EAT Procedure: Reasonable Adjustments on Time Limits for Appeal - J v K & Anor & Equality & Human Rights Commission [2019] EWCA Civ 5

View Publication

Cost Consequences of Accepting a Part 36 Offer late in former RTA and ELPL Protocol Claims – Problems with Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726

In the joined cases of Hislop v Perde and Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726, the Court of Appeal considered the question of the correct approach to costs in cases falling under the fixed costs regime in CPR Part 45 Section IIIA where a Part 36 offer is accepted after the expiry of the relevant period.

Section IIIA is the part of Part 45 which applies to cases no longer proceeding under the RTA and EL/PL Protocol (‘PAP’) such as those proceeding to Fast Track trial. The Court also provided a useful steer on the previously uncanvassed ‘exceptional circumstances’ test under CP45.29J, which provides a general gateway out of the fixed costs regime, and the test for indemnity costs, (see paragraphs 8 to 13 below).

Ikeni Mbako-Allison writes about the Court Of Appeal's approach.

View Publication

In his latest article, Ikeni Mbako-Allison examines Hislop v Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726 and the cost consequences of accepting a Part 36 offer late in former RTA and EL/PL Protocol Claims.

View Publication

In torts such as deceit, where liability depends on the claimant acting in reliance on a statement made to him, the test for establishing vicarious liability is not the same as for other wrongs committed in the course of a servant’s employment. Alex Whatley analyses the Court of Appeals recent decision in Winter v. Hockley Mint Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2480.

Alex Whatley is a Commercial Law barrister specialising in business disputes and Agency. Click here to view his profile.

View Publication

Permission to Challenge a Trustee in Bankruptcy’s Remuneration

James Davies analyses the case of Singh v Hicken [2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch); an appeal against the decision of a County Court judge refusing permission to Mr Singh, a discharged bankrupt, to challenge his trustee’s remuneration. Under Insolvency Rule 2016 18.35 the permission of the court is required before a bankrupt can make such a challenge.

James Davies represented Mr. Hicken both at first instance, where permission was refused, and on appeal to the High Court where the appeal was dismissed.

View Publication