Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The kids are off and most offices consist of tumbleweeds and sheaves of hurriedly-typed holiday notes fluttering in the air-conditioned breeze.
In brief, the world is demob-happy. Well, most of it. For those who are left, there's still plenty of work that needs to be done, including keeping an eye on the latest legal developments.
So, in no particular order, here are this month’s ‘top 5′ developments, as extracted from our Lexis®PSL Commercial monthly round-up.
The European Commission (EC) has published a report evaluating the Commercial Agents Directive (Directive 86/653/EEC).
The EC has concluded that Directive 86/653/EEC meets its objectives and functions well. Directive 86/653/EEC’s benefits outweigh its costs, it remains relevant and continues to have EU added value.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that Directive 86/653/EEC is maintained in its current form.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified the rules on consumer protection in relation to certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees in Faber v Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV.
In the case, the claimant purchased a secondhand car from the defendant garage. A few months after the purchase, the vehicle caught fire while the claimant was driving and it was destroyed. The claimant claimed compensation from the garage for the damage caused by the apparent lack of conformity.
On appeal, the Dutch-referring court asked the CJEU to provide a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC, arts 1(2)(a) and 5.
The CJEU confirmed that any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of the delivery of goods is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery.
The judgment has provided further legal certainty for the consumer and seller, clarifying both the duty to inform the seller of any non-conformity and the burden of proof in disputes arising from allegations of non-conformity.
The guidance may also encourage consumers to notify sellers of any non-conformity earlier without first seeking professional reports on the origin of the issue
In Saint Gobain v Hillmead the High Court has provided a helpful judgment neatly illustrating the court’s approach when considering whether attempts to:
were reasonable within the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977).
The judgment provides a clear illustration of the court’s approach in assessing UCTA 1977 reasonableness as regards clauses, in a contract for the supply of laminate sheets (which were then used in the fabrication of bonded panels as part of the shopfit for Primark stores), which sought to exclude SGA 1979 terms as to quality, exclude liability where the buyer failed to inspect the goods on delivery and notify defects, limit liability to the cost of replacement goods and exclude liability for consequential loss.
In this case, the judge concluded that the key issue in the present case was that the requirement to inspect and notify, failing which all liability was excluded, was too draconian.
In Vidal-Hall v Google (The Information Commissioner intervening), the Court of Appeal held that misuse of private information should be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction and that, in order to make section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) compatible with EU law, that section had to be disapplied, with the consequence that compensation would be recoverable under DPA 1998, s 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of the requirements of DPA 1998.
The court held that this tort was actionable without evidence of pecuniary loss (ie damages could be claimed for emotional distress only).
On 28 July 2015, the Supreme Court granted permission in part for Google to appeal this Court of Appeal decision on three grounds, namely, whether the Court of Appeal was right to:
No dates have been announced for the hearing but it looks unlikely that it will take place before 2016.
The High Court has found manifest errors in Milton Keynes Council’s tender process for the award of a framework agreement and held that there had been breaches of the duties of transparency and equality in Woods Building Services v Milton Keynes Council.
This case is a reminder of the need for procurement exercises in the public sector to be undertaken with tremendous care.
Obviously, all relevant statutory requirements must be followed, and the procuring body must ensure the duties of transparency and equality are complied with and that there are no errors in the process.
However, the case also highlights the need for there to be sufficiently detailed, contemporaneous and written records of the process should be kept by the body undertaking the tender process.
So that’ll do for now but don’t forget, by entering your name and email address in the box on the right hand side of this page you will receive our larger monthly round-up PDF for free along with other exclusive content courtesy of our new Comet newsletter.
And if you are off on your holidays, bonnes vacances!
0330 161 1234