LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.
An application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 is available where a party has failed to comply with court deadlines or procedural rules. The court will apply the three-stage test from Denton v TH White Ltd, considering (1) the seriousness of the breach, (2) the reasons for the default, and (3) all the circumstances of the case. Relief must be sought promptly, as delay may undermine the application.
In addressing the challenge of stalled litigation, the Civil Procedure Rules provide an extensive legal framework designed to facilitate swift and just resolution of cases. Central to this framework is the overriding objective of the CPR, which mandates that cases should be handled justly and at proportionate cost.
English law Unfair Prejudice Petitions offer a remedy for minority shareholders facing oppression by the majority within a company. Where the prospect of winding-up proves undesirable, section 994(1) of the Companies Act 2006 provides an alternative avenue for seeking redress. At LEXLAW, our expert company law team specialises in navigating the complexities of shareholder disputes and unfair prejudice claims.
The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.
The case of Dr Markus Boettcher v (Xio (UK) LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 801 (Comm) (05 April 2023) recently had an interim judgment decided by the Commercial Court.
An award of indemnity costs might give a party in a lawsuit a major advantage, due to the fact that the paying party will be responsible for the legal expenses and the proportionality criterion will not be applied. Since costs on the standard basis are the norm, the indemnity costs principle (included in Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(3)) can be considered punitive in nature.
In the case of Robert Don Hunter Dougan v HMRC [2022] TC8471, the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) ruled the taxpayer had not deliberately intended to cause a loss…
In Gorbachev v Guriev & Ors [2022] EWHC 1907 (Comm), the Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to permit service of a third-party disclosure application outside…
UK judges opened a path for a group of more than 200,000 plaintiffs to bring a suit against BHP Group Ltd over its role in the collapse of…