Off the Bars meaning

Alaska Airlines Inc v Virgin Aviation TM Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 2505 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal outcomes of Mr Justice Foxton’s analysis can be stated as follows: Where an unjust enrichment claim founded on failure of basis is invoked to stop payment of a contractual amount, the correct characterisation is that this engages the defence of circuity of action (para [49]). In that scenario, circuity of action does not mean the debt is never due; rather, it supplies a defence to liability. A broadly drafted no set off clause captures such a defence, so summary judgment can be granted (para [52]). To reach those conclusions, Foxton J reviewed a range of authorities in which no set off provisions were relied upon (see especially para [47]), and he also considered and clarified other decisions relevant to the underlying issues of principle. Accordingly, a debtor cannot avoid a summary determination merely by pointing to...

Original news Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch) What is this case about? This matter concerns an appeal brought by Canary Wharf Group (CWG), a London-based property company, against a ruling of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) that rejected the registration of CWG’s application to register the word mark CANARY WHARF, lodged in March 2013. The specification spanned printed matter (class 16) and services connected with real estate, building construction and design, car parking, landscape design and security (classes 36, 37, 39, 42, 44 and 45). By Decision O-423-14, the Hearing Officer refused the application on ‘absolute grounds’ under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), namely: trade marks lacking distinctive character must not be registered (TMA 1994, s 3(1)(b)) trade marks consisting solely of signs or indications which may, in trade, designate the geographical origin or other characteristics of the goods or services shall not be registered (TMA 1994,...

Staley is challenging the Financial Conduct Authority’s prohibition, which bars him from senior roles at regulated financial firms, in a two‑week hearing before the Upper Tribunal. This was the first time a senior banker in Britain faced such a ban, and observers view the proceedings as a litmus test for the embattled watchdog. ‘Failing to see off Mr Staley’s challenge could be extremely damaging for the FCA,’ said Tom Bushnell, an associate barrister at Hickman & Rose. ‘It has had a torrid time of late, not least after an all‑party parliamentary group’s scathing review last November [2024], which branded it incompetent.’ The FCA prohibited Staley and levied a £1.8m fine in 2023 after concluding he had ‘recklessly’ approved a Barclays letter to the regulator containing two misleading claims about the nature of his relationship with Epstein, a convicted paedophile, and about when they last communicated. Staley exited Barclays in 2021 after the FCA issued provisional findings that he had acted recklessly and without integrity—the banker had told the regulator...

This Practice Note considers exclusion and limitation of liability in business-to-business (B2B) contracts. This Practice Note offers guidance on the common law and statutory controls that govern exclusion and limitation of liability clauses (also described as limitation of liability clauses, limitation clauses, exclusion of liability clauses, exclusion clauses and exemption clauses), including the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967). It identifies which provisions amount to exemption clauses and sets out three central matters to address when drafting them or assessing them in a dispute: incorporation construction statutory controls It also outlines the courts’ treatment of attempts to exclude or restrict liability for certain breaches (eg fundamental breach) and for different heads of loss (eg direct loss, indirect and consequential loss, loss of profits, loss of use and loss of data). It notes common techniques parties use to allocate or restrict risk (eg financial caps, time bars, excluding rights of set-off) and addresses...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Taking-Over Certificate The certificate issued by the Engineer under a FIDIC form (or by the Employer under the Silver Book) confirming that the Works, or a Section, have reached the level of completion required by the contract, together with the date this milestone was met; akin to a JCT certificate of practical completion. See Practice Notes: FIDIC contracts 2017—time and FIDIC contracts (pre-2017 editions)—time. Taking off The noting of measured dimensions extracted from drawings or schedules. This is the initial step in assembling bills of quantities. Target cost contract A form of cost reimbursable contract where the contractor is paid the actual cost of delivering the works, subject to a target cost agreed by the parties at project commencement. At completion, an agreed mechanism/formula determines whether there were savings or an overrun—the contractor then either shares any saving...

Limitation clauses and exclusion clauses in construction contracts This Practice Note offers guidance on the use of limitation and exclusion provisions—often called exemption or exception clauses—within construction contracts. It addresses monetary caps, the exclusion of consequential (indirect) loss and typical carve-outs, together with alternative mechanisms for curbing liability. It also examines the legal constraints on limiting or excluding liability, including those arising under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977), the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). Construction contracts range from small residential schemes to major infrastructure or commercial development projects. The potential exposure for contractors, as well as consultants and sub-contractors, when something goes wrong can be substantial, particularly where they take on design responsibilities. Professional indemnity insurance may protect parties in respect of certain claims, yet it might not be sufficient to provide complete cover. It is therefore unsurprising that parties often seek to manage their exposure to damages through terms that expressly limit, or even exclude, liability...

In this Q&A, we assume that B’s claim is smaller than A’s. Legal process against the company Under paragraph 43(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the moratorium prevents any legal process—covering legal proceedings, execution, distress and diligence—from being started or continued against the company or its property without the administrator’s consent or the court’s permission. This wording is wide enough to encompass any remaining actions or steps that might otherwise be taken against the company or its property. Accordingly, B can only bring an action against A with the approval of the administrator or the leave of the court. The purpose of the moratorium (and the interim moratorium) is to safeguard the company and its assets from creditor action during the company’s administration and the pre-appointment period. It bars any steps, actions or processes from being begun or carried on against the company and its property, save with the administrator’s consent (if one is appointed) or the court’s permission. See Practice...

The answer turns on: what the contract of employment says about bank or public holidays whether any right is contractual rather than statutory, and whether the contract bars payment in lieu of contractual leave on termination Whether there is a right to bank or public holidays Under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833), workers get 5.6 weeks’ paid leave a year: four weeks plus 1.6 weeks. There is no statutory right to paid time off on public or bank holidays; this depends on the contract’s express or implied terms (Campbell & Smith v Greenwood). If an employer specifies “X days plus bank and public holidays”, that creates a contractual right, including any extra bank holidays announced that year. Effect of sickness absence If bank holidays fall within the 5.6‑week statutory pot, any that coincide with sickness accrue and can be taken later. If bank holidays are given in addition to the 5.6 weeks, any day in lieu for a...