Legal News

Reid v Price [2020] EWHC 594 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is a helpful authority on quantifying damages for claims involving disclosure of private information, breach of undertakings, breach of confidence, and the misuse of private information. It addresses how compensation should be assessed across overlapping privacy-related wrongs. The principles articulated in the judgment merit close attention by practitioners advising on likely awards in comparable situations, particularly since, in Warby J’s own phrase, ‘the authorities are not very numerous’. Warby J held that Mr Reid succeeded on four distinct causes of action: breach of contract, namely breach of express undertakings provided by Ms Price in 2011 that the relevant material would not be revealed unjustified breach of Mr Reid’s confidence misuse of private information concerning Mr Reid breach of statutory duty under section 4(4) of the Data...

Dowman Imports Limited v 2 Toobz Limited [2020] EWHC 291 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Unjust enrichment This ruling affirms and refines the approach to restitutionary claims when services are supplied in anticipation of a contract being finalised: Four core questions must be addressed: has the defendant obtained a benefit? was that benefit gained at the claimant’s expense? was the enrichment unjust? are any defences available? If those questions are answered in the claimant’s favour, the court will determine the value of the unjust enrichment by objectively assessing the market value or price of the services, akin to a quantum meruit. The defendant might try to show that they personally valued the services below market rate (subjective devaluation) to cut down or defeat the claim. That attempt fails if the claimant proves either that: the benefit was...

Man Ching Yuen v Landy Chet Kin Wong , First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber), 2020 (ref 2016/1089) What are the practical implications of this case? Every day, innumerable deeds are completed across the country. By virtue of section 1(3) of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 ( LP( MP) A 1989), a deed must be signed in the presence of a witness who attests the signing. Yet what amounts to presence? Could witnessing occur via Skype, Facetime, Whats App or similar platforms? In addressing that issue, the FTT indicated, without a definitive ruling, that, under present law, whether the phrase in LP( MP) A 1989, s 1(3) ‘in the presence of a witness’ can be met via video link admits more than one arguable view. The tribunal’s indication fell short of a determination, acknowledging that the statutory wording, as it stands, could...

Filatona Trading Ltd and another v Navigator Equities Ltd and others; Danilina v Chernukhin and others [2020] EWCA Civ 109 What are the practical implications of this case? If you wish to be certain that the individual named in the agreement is the sole true counterparty, the contract must deploy clear, unequivocal wording that shuts out any principal from relying on the rights and remedies within it. Standard form clauses to this effect are identified at para [90] of the judgment. Heightened caution is required where there is not only a principal, but one who is both known and disclosed. Where a party is fully aware that the signatory acts as a nominee or agent, any clause aimed at excluding that principal must be expressed with particular clarity, because such wording works against the strong common law presumption that parties are not to be treated as...

Tim Sp A— Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip Sp A, Ministero dell’ Economia e delle Finanze Case C-395/18 What are the practical implications of this case? General implications This ruling is expected to trigger reconsideration of national procurement laws across EU Member States that impose automatic, rather than discretionary, exclusions. Under Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/ EU, contracting authorities may choose to bar tenderers shown to be unreliable—for example due to breaches of environmental or social duties, including accessibility rules for disabled persons ( Article 57(4)(a)). Member States may transpose these grounds with differing levels of rigour, provided the conditions align with general EU law (paras [33] and [34]). The Court of Justice delineated the scope of that discretion by confirming that Member States may require contracting authorities to exclude bidders for infringements of social and labour law committed by their nominated...

Bioconstruct Gmb H v Winspear and another [2020] EWHC 7 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling rekindles discussion about optimal methods for completing a closing with pre-executed pages, particularly where multiple parties and signatories are involved and where amendments or corrections are made to previously circulated written contracts. The court’s analysis, relating to a deed that was both signed and acted upon by the party seeking to rely on it, yet held invalid and unenforceable, underscores the need for caution when attaching pre-signed signature pages to deeds. In this respect, the judgment draws attention to a circumstance not expressly covered by the Law Society of England & Wales’ Practice Note, ‘ Execution of documents by virtual means’ (16 February 2010). That guidance identifies Koenigsblatt v Sweet as the leading authority on ratification for written...

Secretary of State for Transport v Arriva Rail East Midlands Ltd ( Arriva) [2019] EWCA Civ 2259 (18 December 2019)) What are the practical implications of this case? This Court of Appeal ruling, which confirms the High Court’s earlier judgment, offers firm guidance on the distinct character of the Francovich damages cause of action and the limitation deadlines governing it. While confined to Regulation ( EC) 1370/2007 (the Railway Regulation), its reach is broader for breach of statutory duty claims and Francovich actions, so long as the latter persist within UK law. Where a claimant considers judicial review to contest a decision said to infringe EU law, the ordinary three-month period governs that challenge. However, for private law claims— even if public law grounds based on EU law are ongoing or echoed in Part 7 proceedings—the relevant time bar is the domestic...

Brake v Guy [2019] EWHC 3332 ( Ch) What was the background? This judgment addresses two applications. The first sought an injunction preventing three respondents (the Guy Parties) from using material obtained from an email account said to have been wrongly accessed by them (the documents application). The second asked for a declaration that the opposing parties (the Brakes) could not rely on legal professional privilege over various documents within that account where they were in furtherance of an unlawful scheme (the LPP application). Both applications formed part of broader proceedings between the Guy Parties— Dr Geoffrey Guy, the Chedington Court Estate Ltd and Axnoller Events Ltd—and the Brakes, Mrs Nihal Brake and Mr Andrew Brake. The dispute concerned two properties, a farm and a cottage; the Brakes had occupied the cottage, and its title had become the subject of serious issues within...

Quinn Infrastructure Services Ltd v Sullivan and others [2019] EWHC 2863 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision turned predominantly on the particular facts and depended heavily on specialist opinion, yet it clearly flags points practitioners must watch carefully when counselling clients on arrangements. Loose, undocumented understandings can create difficulties if not properly recorded and memorialised. It further underlines the core rule that a party cannot recover for a loss it has not actually sustained. Lastly, it exemplifies the difficulties posed by so-called ‘blind alley’ efforts on prototypes that were never deployed or delivered, and, in practice, the task of assessing what amounts to a fair fee for work performed. What was the background? The claimant provided engineers to BT. The first defendant acted as a de facto director and was subsequently thereafter made managing director of the claimant’s telecoms arm. The second...

Priyanka Shipping Ltd v Glory Bulk Shipping Pte Ltd [2019] EWHC 2804 ( Comm), [2019] All ER ( D) 176 ( Oct) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment neatly distils the rules on enforcing negative covenants through injunctive relief. It cautions parties against attempting to sidestep such restrictions by paying damages instead. The court emphasised the strong policy of holding parties to their bargains, and the authorities confirm that a defendant cannot simply buy the ability to trespass on the claimant’s contractual rights by paying compensation. The court also recapped the framework for negotiating damages (formerly termed Wrotham Park damages), concluding that such awards arise only where the breach causes the loss of a valuable asset that is created or safeguarded by the right infringed, as opposed to the contractual right in the abstract. What was the...

Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited C-208/18 What are the practical implications of this case? The First Chamber has affirmed that the notion of 'consumer' in Articles 17–19 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), is broad enough to cover users of online trading platforms dealing with financial instruments. Such users, provided they are not acting in a professional role, may bring proceedings before their domestic courts, notwithstanding a contractual jurisdiction clause to the contrary. The Court of Justice’s decision not to narrow the concept of consumer means that even highly knowledgeable users or high-net-worth individuals are captured and may rely on the regime’s consumer safeguards, as long as they persuade the court they were not using the platform in the pursuit of their trade or profession. This applies regardless of wealth, trading expertise, or status. What was the...

Emagine Films Ltd v Mister Smith Entertainment Ltd and another company [2019] EWHC 2085 ( Ch) (30 July 2019) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underlines how difficult it is to legislate for every eventuality in preliminary papers for complex deals, and how implied terms can be used to address unforeseen gaps. An unanticipated issue arose after the term sheet was signed: the producer declined to accept terms consistent with those originally contemplated. The problem did not lie in the term sheet anticipating further formal documentation; that feature did not, by itself, render the arrangement uncertain or ineffective. Rather, the difficulty stemmed from the producer’s refusal to agree to fundamental matters that both Mister Smith and Emagine had assumed would be accepted. In those circumstances, the court was willing to imply a term that brought the term sheet contract to an end. The...

Lamesa Investments Ltd v Cynergy Bank Ltd [2019] EWHC 1877 ( Comm) What did the court decide? Judge Mark Pelling held that Cynergy Bank was entitled to rely on a provision in its agreement with Lamesa Investments that allowed it to withhold payments without falling into default if any law, regulation or court order prevented the transfer of the sums. At the core of the dispute was a £30m loan that Cynergy Bank, then known as Bank of Cyprus UK, obtained from Lamesa Investments in December 2017, under which interest was contractually due to Lamesa Investments twice a year. The ruling records that in April 2018 the US Department of the Treasury Office for Foreign Assets Control placed Viktor Vekselberg ( Vekselberg), the owner of Lamesa Investments’ parent company, on its list of 'specially designated nationals' as part of a drive against Russian...

Amending a claim to allege breach of confidence ( Slater & Gordon v Watchstone) Slater & Gordon ( UK) 1 Ltd v Watchstone [2019] EWHC 2371 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Two principal practical consequences follow from this decision: It serves as a caution for those involved in M& A deals or litigating about them. Although exploiting every route to gather intelligence on the other side may appear commercially astute, inviting the opponent’s corporate adviser to tacitly share confidential material is arguably unlawful and may leave participants exposed to a significant claim It also exemplifies the court’s pragmatic and constructive approach when major disclosure issues arise that warrant an amendment—if persuasive arguments emerge, the court will seek to accommodate them. The familiar disapproval of late amendments did not feature in the judgment, perhaps suggesting that......

Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd and another company v Junaid and others [2019] EWHC 2097 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The claim proceeded on three tortious bases: (a) conspiracy to damage the claimant’s business by unlawful means (b) unlawful interference with the claimant’s business (c) procuring breach of contract Advisers should consider with care how to frame pleadings where several putative defendants appear to have acted together to the claimant’s detriment. At the outset, it can be prudent to advance as many alternative formulations as are properly arguable. Yet, as trial draws near, practitioners ought to confront the disclosure head‑on and decide if it serves their clients’ interests to persist with each strand. Ultimately, the claimant succeeded on only one tort—procuring breach of contract. That was because, unlike the other two, it does not demand an intention to injure the claimant, but instead requires...

Colin Robert Parr v Keystone Healthcare Ltd and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1246 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal confirmed, on established authority, that any advantage secured by a fiduciary while breaching his duties must be stripped and handed to the principal. Stripping that gain is neither compensatory nor restitutionary; instead, it is a sanction aimed at removing the benefit the fiduciary has wrongly acquired. Advisers should avoid confusing loss, or damages, with the accounting for profits required from a fiduciary who has acted in breach and earned money from that wrongdoing. The court also commented on the proper use of citations and warned of potential costs consequences where parties fail to observe the applicable Practice Directions. What was the background? Mr Parr and Mr and Mrs Ward held the shares in Keystone and also served as its...

P.m. and Others (request for preliminary ruling) C-264/18 What are the practical implications of this case? Under the PCR 2015, a wide range of legal services let by public bodies fall within the ‘light‑touch’ regime in Chapter 3. As a result, awarding those contracts is governed by less burdensome requirements than those that apply to most other service procurements under the PCR 2015. Yet a narrower set of legal services—chiefly arbitration and conciliation work, together with representation in certain legal proceedings (and legal advice connected to such proceedings)—are carved out altogether from the procurement rules by regulation 10 of the PCR 2015. The dispute stems from a Belgian challenge to the exclusion of the relevant legal services under the Belgian counterpart to regulation 10. The applicants contended that excluding those services conflicted with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the TFEU, and also...

Moda International Brands Ltd v Gateley LLP (later known as Gateley Heritage LLP) and another [2019] EWHC 1326 ( QB) What are the practical implications of the case? The practical effect of Moda International Brands Ltd v Gateley LLP (later known as Gateley Heritage LLP) and another is that summoning a third party to testify in a loss of chance claim does not, by itself, settle what would have occurred unless the court sees all pertinent material and the testimony is wholly reliable. In circumstances such as these—where the witness lacked credibility and there had not been full disclosure—the court dismissed the defendant’s submission that it should decide the likely result of the Moda– Mortar negotiations by applying the balance of probabilities. Consistently with Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5, [2019] All ER ( D) 59 ( Feb), the proper method was to...

Plevin v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company Ltd [2019] EWHC 1339 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Disputes over the reach of CFAs and after-the-event ( ATE) insurance are routine within inter partes detailed assessment proceedings. This matter is somewhat out of the ordinary because it concerns a quarrel between a claimant, her solicitors, and an ATE insurer—though, in substance, between the solicitors and the insurer—about the effect of a clumsily drafted CFA and policy of insurance. The ruling is not the first occasion on which issues of construction of the CFA and the insurance policy in this litigation have surfaced. During the detailed assessment before the Supreme Court that culminated in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2017] UKSC 23, Paragon mounted similar objections. The case stands as a cautionary illustration of the hazards of neglecting to reach clear...

The ad The ad opened with a line about being ‘stuck in the friend zone’, implying that wouldn’t continue if readers used a Cheltenham free bet offer. It urged readers to join William Hill with code W40 and place £10 on a Cheltenham race to get 4 x £10 free bets. T& Cs apply. A link followed to download William Hill app. The issue was whether the ad......