AC meaning

Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Accidents caused by balls escaping play (Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850) are not unusual. Incidents involving people climbing fences (Phillips v South East Education and Library Board [2015] NIQB 91; Wray v Derry City and Strabane District Council [2020] NIQB 39) also arise. More broadly, the decision reinforces that OLA 1957, s 1(1) limits the duty of care owed by owners/occupiers to dangers stemming from the state of the premises and to acts or omissions in relation to that state. Relying on Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46, the appeal court drew a distinction between hazards attributable to the condition of the premises where what was done, or not done, formed part of that condition—such as, for example, allowing speedboats to circulate in an...

Seddon v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency [2019] EWCA Civ 14, [2019] All ER (D) 139 (Jan) What are the practical implications of the judgment? The Court of Appeal in Seddon v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency held that the agency owes no duty of care to would‑be buyers of registered historic vehicles, notwithstanding knowledge that a car is being marketed and that questions have been raised about its identity and age. Of broader significance, and useful to practitioners generally, is Hamblen LJ’s succinct restatement of the factors the courts regard as pertinent when deciding whether to recognise a duty of care in claims for pure economic loss, providing a guide to the circumstances in which such a duty may, in principle, be imposed. What was the background? The respondent is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Transport, tasked under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA 1994) with registering and licensing drivers and vehicles across the UK, and with collecting vehicle excise...

CNG Applicant and G 1st Respondent G 2nd Respondent SIL 3rd Respondent [2025] HKCFI 3598 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling matters because it confirms the demanding bar for disqualifying arbitrators in Hong Kong and places that approach within a settled body of precedent. To begin, the court restated that the touchstone for apparent bias remains the ‘real possibility’ standard from Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, as adopted locally in Jung Science Information Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corporation [2008] 4 HKLRD 776. Justice Chan underlined that firm case management, interruptions, or terse comments do not suffice. That position aligns with Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 2416 and Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488, which both make clear that resolve or impatience is not the same as bias. Practically, advocates should prepare clients for the reality that removing a tribunal member calls for far more than displeasure with demeanour or tone. In addition, the...

Overview This Practice Note forms part of our LLB Contract Law series for law students. It surveys the remedies for breach of contract, with damages at the heart of the common law response. Setting remedies within the framework of contract, it explains when a party may terminate—most notably for breach of conditions and of innominate (or ‘intermediate’) terms. It then sets out the expectation principle from Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, stressing that an award should put the claimant in the position they would have been in had performance occurred. The Note next traces the principal constraints on recovery—causation, remoteness, and the duty to mitigate—and discusses leading cases on mitigation to show how these limits operate even once breach is proved. It also considers alternative measures—expectation, reliance and, in rare cases, restitutionary recovery—before addressing quantification, including the contrast between ‘difference in value’ and ‘cost of cure’ illustrated by Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344. Finally, it deals with non-pecuniary loss and the contemporary approach to liquidated...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

CASE HUB (date of judgment—22/10/2015) (ARCHIVE 22/10/2015) See further: timeline, commentary and related/relevant cases ARCHIVED — this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 October 2015; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline AC‑Treuhand, a consultancy, appealed against the General Court’s judgment which upheld the Commission’s 11 November 2009 decision finding infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA and imposing a €348,000 fine on AC‑Treuhand for its alleged role as a facilitator of a Europe‑wide cartel concerning the supply of tin and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers (the “Heat stabilisers cartel”). On 22 October, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and affirmed the General Court’s judgment and, in consequence, confirmed the underlying Commission infringement decision in so far as it related to AC‑Treuhand. The case centres on the potential liability under Article 101 TFEU of intermediaries and consultants for assisting the collusive conduct of others. Its principal interest lies in whether Article 101(1) TFEU extends to such facilitation...

Common practice is to use a retrospective licence to alter after works have already been fully completed...