- Dispute Resolution roundup for week ending 21 February 2014
- News analysis
- Court fees reform
- Choice of court agreements
- Status of adjudication decisions
- Appeal better than relief from sanctions application?
- Privacy injunction granted and further proceedings stayed
- Court of Appeal upholds limitation extension for fraudulent misrepresentation
- Security for costs unless order
- Failure to include full statement of truth in costs budget
- UKSC rules on pre-contractual representations
- UKSC publishes new guide to proceedings for those without a legal representative
- Relief from sanctions granted for trivial and understandable breach
- Disclosure reports not required in Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
- Court upholds appeal as tribunal's conclusion wrong in law
- Enforceable exclusion clauses
- Other items of interest
- New and updated content
- Dispute Resolution Blog, Twitter and contacts
This week, in Newland, the Commercial Court dismissed applications for rule 3.9 relief from sanctions and to revoke or vary a judgment under Rule 3.1(7); instead it acted ‘robustly’ applying both the Tibbles criteria and the finding in Mitchell. In another costs budgeting case, Pank, the TCC held that a party’s failure to include a full statement of truth on a costs budget constituted an irregularity rather than rendering the budget a nullity. In addition and of note, the Supreme Court in Cramaso LLP has also considered the question of to whom are duties of care owed when making pre-contractual representations. We continue to focus on providing a roundup of key news stories from the last week highlighting their practical implications as well as updating our Practice Notes to ensure you are kept up to date.
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