LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
In Dwyer (UK) Franchising Ltd v. Fredbar Ltd & Bartlett [2021] EWHC 1218 (Ch), the High Court ruled that self-isolating due to coronavirus (COVID-19) counted as ‘force majeure’,…
The Court of Appeal recently analysed a swap mis-selling complaint submitted by the Claimant under the FCA Dispute Resolution scheme (“DISP”), which complaint would stop time running for the purposes of a making a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”).
The High Court has refused permission for two property developers to amend their initial agreed cost budget of approximately £1.5 million after an attempt to request almost double the sums allowed.
The High Court has held that singer Ed Sheeran, ignored CPR Part 18 Requests for Information from Defendants in a copyright infringement case. The Court takes breaches of its rules seriously.
The High Court held RBS and Natwest vicariously liable for traders assisting in fraud, despite lacking actual knowledge of the fraud. Read the full judgment for Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors v Natwest Markets Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch), which case concerned legal privilege amongst allegations of fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance.
There are, as a result of coronavirus restrictions, bound to be many more remote and virtual hearings as courts, tribunals and other forms of dispute resolution adapt to appropriate new ways of working. The guidance sets out the best ways to prepare for hearings proceeding remotely.
Given the complexity of business interruption claims and the legal uncertainty surrounding their enforcement (the FCA have issued a test case recently in the High Court), it is advisable that you seek expert legal advice early in order to prepare your Business Interruption Insurance claim.
In the High Court case of Collier & Ors v Bennett, three claimants obtained a Norwich Pharmacal order against Doughty Street Chambers’ barrister, Daniel Bennett for pre-action disclosure of messages and details of a Twitter account to assist victims of libel and harassment.
The High Court judgment in Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi [2020] EWHC 1855 (Ch) (10 July 2020) provides much needed certainty over payment provisions on early termination in DBAs. The clarity given by HHJ Parfitt in relation to the DBA Regulations will widen access to justice as impecunious litigants will be more able to pursue civil and commercial litigation via damages-based agreements.
Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers [2020] EWHC 1708 is another case concerning where and when service may occur on the Defendant’s solicitors. The facts are similar to the Court of Appeal case of Woodward v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution (which Lexlaw were instructed on). The Claimant, a litigant in person, purportedly served the Claim Form on the last day of its four month validity period via email on the Defendants’ solicitors, who had not confirmed whether they were authorised to accept service. This amounted to a failure to effect service of the Claim Form. Applications to the Court to validate service were refused and the claim dismissed highlighting the dangers of ‘DIY litigation’ and the importance of instructing a specialist litigation team.