Material Fact meaning

UK Grid Solutions Ltd and Amey Power Services Ltd v Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd [2024] CSOH 5 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision reiterates the governing principles for assessing whether an adjudicator overlooked a defence advanced by the respondent. Where an adjudicator does not engage with a defence that would have been significant to the resolution of the dispute, the resulting award will be incapable of enforcement (Construction Centre v Highland Council). That said, the lesson emphasised here is that an adjudicator is not obliged to tackle every point ventilated in the referral, so long as their reasoning sufficiently discloses the route to the conclusion reached. In addition, the judgment confirms that the court will not decline to enforce merely because the terms of the adjudicator’s orders contain mistakes, provided it remains plain what orders were in fact intended. What was the background? UK Grid Solutions Ltd and Amey Power Services Ltd created a joint venture (the JV). In October 2018,...

In this issue: Data protection Retirement options Pension Schemes Bill Taxation The Pensions Regulator Dates for your diary Trackers Data protection GDPR breach doesn’t require proof of third-party access (Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1117) In Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s ruling ([2024] EWHC 383 (KB)) which had struck out data protection claims raised by pension scheme members after the scheme administrator, having failed to update its database, sent annual benefit statements containing personal data to out‑of‑date addresses. The officers pursued claims for data misuse and GDPR breaches, seeking compensation for non‑material harm—namely anxiety, alarm, distress and embarrassment—on the basis that their personal data had been posted to unknown third parties. At first instance, most claims were struck out because the claimants were found not to have a real prospect of success, due to insufficient evidence of damage and no act amounting to misuse, since...

Okuashvili and others companies v Ivanishvili and others; Allied Global Tobacco Ltd and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others [2025] EWHC 829 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment functions as a thorough digest of the legal principles governing jurisdictional challenges—especially the test in Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel [2011] UKPC 7—while also providing practitioners with useful clarity on the court’s handling of alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications. In this matter, the court held that the failure to draw its attention to a series of ‘ inherent problems with the case ’—stemming from the fact that many of the asserted claims were time-barred under the applicable law—led to a picture being presented to the master that was ‘ a world away ’ from the true position...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note sets out how to build a negotiation approach, offering tips on organising facts, aligning with client goals (including identifying the best alternative to a settlement), appraising the other side’s stance, selecting negotiation techniques, and deciding whether to open with a settlement proposal or a preliminary discussion. For direction on who should participate in settlement talks, and on confidentiality and the effect of ‘subject to contract’, see Practice Note: Settling disputes—who, confidentiality and subject to contract. For assisted routes to settlement, see Practice Note: What is ADR? and related material. For guidance on making offers and recording a deal, see Practice Notes: Settling disputes—settlement offers (Calderbank, WPSAC and Part 36) Settling disputes—how to document a settlement and related content Settling disputes—an early strategy for settlement A stage of litigation involves exchanging information under an applicable pre-action protocol or, if none governs the claim, under the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. The Letter of Claim and the Letter of...

This Practice Note examines misrepresentation, misstatement and non-disclosure in property transactions. It outlines: a seller’s potential liability for answers provided to pre-contract enquiries; the buyer’s possible remedies for non-disclosure, misrepresentation and misstatement; and contractual provisions that may protect the seller if a claim is made. What is misrepresentation? In this context, a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact by one party to another that is not a term of the contract but persuades the other to enter into it. For liability to arise, the statement must be material and actually relied upon by the other party. If a seller gives an untrue answer in replies to enquiries (or elsewhere), the buyer relies on it when deciding whether to enter into the contract and then suffers loss by entering the contract, the seller will be liable for misrepresentation. It is unnecessary to prove the misrepresentation was the only matter relied upon; liability may arise even where the misinformation formed just...

1 Directors’ conflicts of interest 1.1 Subject to the Companies Act 2006 and once they have revealed to the directors the nature and breadth of any material interest, a director may, despite their office or the fact that, absent the authority given by this article 1.1, they would or could breach their duty under the Companies Act 2006 to avoid conflicts of interest, serve as a director or other officer of, be employed by, be a party to any transaction or arrangement with, or otherwise hold an interest in, any undertaking within the company’s group, or any undertaking promoted by the company or by any undertaking within the company’s group, or any undertaking in which the company or any undertaking within the company’s group otherwise has an interest, and undertakings in which the group is interested...

At the outset, it is essential to recognise that the approach to waiving claims varies according to whether the settlement is concluded by a COT3 agreement (Form COT3) facilitated by Acas, or by an agreement made under section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) with confirmation from an independent legal adviser. The distinction is material. In the case of a settlement agreement pursuant to ERA 1996, s 203, the position is plain and uncomplicated. It admits of little ambiguity in practice. Regardless of any express wording, such an agreement cannot validly prevent a claimant from pursuing a later victimisation claim that stems from their having brought the original discrimination proceedings. That outcome follows from ERA 1996, ss 203(1) and (3)(b), which nullify any element of a settlement that does not pertain to the specific proceedings being settled. Accordingly, any provision that purports to settle or waive future victimisation claims, which had not arisen when the agreement was made, would be of no effect and should be treated...

If a property vendor makes an inaccurate statement of fact, and the purchaser relies on it when agreeing the contract, it could potentially be suitable to pursue a claim for misrepresentation...