This issue came up over lunch recently. It got me thinking about whether I would like to see my decisions made public or whether I prefer the current position whereby they remain private between the parties and only get an airing in public if there is an issue on enforcement. Even then, the decision is not put into the public domain, rather bits and pieces are shared by the judge in the judgment, along with the adjudicator’s main findings.
Miriam Nothman might be a lawyer’s worst nightmare. She was the last litigant in person to take a case to the House of Lords – and win it. Proof, if needed, that not all litigants in person make frivolous claims. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd indicates that the judiciary has concerns over the increasing number of litigants in person and the effect this is having on the conduct of litigation.
One of the reasons that adjudication is so popular is the speed in which a temporarily binding decision can be obtained. However, as a result the parties can be under immense pressure to produce submissions within very limited timescales. In particular, the responding party may only have seven days to prepare a response. When you take into account the other commitments of its employees and party representatives, this might be a tall order. Similar problems can arise with the reply, particularly when new defences are raised in the response.
However, one of the consequences of these compressed timescales is that submissions tend to be longer than necessary. Consequently, an alternative title to this post might be “Why say it in ten words when 100 will do?”. Continue reading
For almost 60 years (most recently in Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems), courts have been asked to consider what happens to money already paid by way of instalments in relation to a contract if the contract is rescinded and the seller retains the property that is the subject matter of the contract.
In summary, the cases have held that if the pre-payment of an instalment is not intended to be a forfeitable deposit, the seller’s right to retain the instalment is conditional upon completion of the contract and the transfer of title to the seller. In order to determine whether it is a forfeitable deposit, one has to construe the terms of the actual contract as a whole. Continue reading
