- May 20, 2020
Fiduciary duties and group loyalty – A Company v X and others
“The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty” (Lord Millet in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew). It is well-known that barristers and solicitors owe fiduciary duties to their clients (the core duty being that of loyalty) such that they must not act for a second client if that would put … Continue reading Fiduciary duties and group loyalty – A Company v X and others →
- May 16, 2018
Nearly, but not quite: the difficulties of resisting payment of an on-demand guarantee
It is notoriously difficult to resist payment following a call on an on-demand guarantee or bond. Generally, nothing less than a seriously arguable case of fraud by the beneficiary will suffice. The stringency of this test is backed by strong policy arguments militating in favour of protecting the integrity of the banking system. However, even … Continue reading Nearly, but not quite: the difficulties of resisting payment of an on-demand guarantee →
- June 8, 2016
The cost of switching experts
There are many reasons why a party might wish to change expert witness. For example, the litigation may have dragged on for some time and the expert may wish to be released, a fee (or other) dispute may have arisen and sometimes it becomes apparent that they are simply not up to the job. The … Continue reading The cost of switching experts →
- December 16, 2015
When is a door not a door? When it is ajar!
With Christmas fast approaching (along with terrible cracker jokes – I’m sorry, and thank you for reading on), you might be forgiven for missing the costs decision in Van Oord UK Ltd and Sicim Roadbridge Ltd v Allseas UK Ltd (OSR and AUK respectively). However, it provides a useful consideration of whether, and if so when, a defendant’s … Continue reading When is a door not a door? When it is ajar! →
- February 13, 2015
Issuing a TCC claim before complying with the Protocol: “extreme peril”?
On numerous occasions the courts have emphatically stressed the need to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol). Sometimes, however, a claimant is hard up against the expiry of the limitation period and, as the lesser of two evils, has to issue proceedings without complying with it. In such circumstances … Continue reading Issuing a TCC claim before complying with the Protocol: “extreme peril”? →