Dispute Resolution analysis: Leggatt J in the High Court has considered whether a defendant can bring a contribution claim against his co-defendant following the claimant settling their claim against the co-defendant. He also considered whether the court has power to grant a freezing injunction or alternative quia timet relief in aid of a contribution claim. This decision is of interest to practitioners advising co-defendants where the possibility of a contribution claim under Part 20 might arise. Of particular interest is Leggatt J's criticism of the requirement that there must be an accrued cause of action in order for the court to grant in injunction. His view was that this line of authority was 'ripe for reconsideration’.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Take a free trial
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
Complete all the fields above to proceed to the next step.
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
Voluntary manslaughterVoluntary manslaughter consists of those killings which would be murder (because the accused has the relevant mental element for murder) but which are reduced to manslaughter because of one of the three special defences (loss of control, diminished responsibility or suicide
Private nuisancePrivate nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. Interference must be unreasonable, and may be caused, eg by water, smoke, smell, fumes, gas, noise, heat or vibrations. Where the defendant has not
Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) is a specific corporation tax regime that applies exclusively to the gains and losses of intangible fixed assets. Note, however, that certain intangible fixed assets are excluded from the regime, see Practice Note: Excluded intangible fixed
This Practice Note considers the legal concept of mistake in contract law. It examines common mistake, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, mistake as to identity and mistake as to the document signed (non est factum). It also considers the impact of each of these types of mistake on the contract and
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.