This Precedent is intended for law firms. It can be used to maintain

Arbitration analysis: The English Commercial Court, in this judgement, concluded that there was a ‘strong public interest’ position that commercial parties having freely agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration should be kept to their decision and the courts will not lightly entertain a suggestion that a dispute between commercial parties was incapable, as a matter of public policy, of being submitted to arbitration. Accordingly, the court rejected NDK’s appeal and argument that foreign claims brought under Cypriot Articles of Association (Articles) did not fall within an arbitration agreement in a shareholders’ agreement (SHA). It held that any rational businessperson could only have intended that the arbitration agreement would apply to any disputes between the shareholders in connection with the SHA, even if formulated by reference to the Articles. Written by Sandip Patel QC, FCIArb, managing partner Aliant Law and barrister 33 Bedford Row.

This Precedent Claims register can be used to keep a record of any ongoing claims against the business and keep track of your litigation

Dispute Resolution analysis: The decision concerned 4 claims (Jagger, Amin, Tina and Mahmood) issued against AXA Insurance UK plc (AXA). AXA was the insurer for a now bankrupt installer of cavity wall insulation (CWI). There were a number of such claims in the North East of England. The same law firm, SSB Law (SSB) acted on a large number of them. SSB had filed these claims under a new pilot portal (the Damage Claims Portal or DCP). When filing these claims, solicitors for SSB indicated that the ‘expected claim value’ was up to £10,000. An amended claim form was subsequently produced which amended the value of the claim significantly in each case. The increased court fee was not proffered for some of the claims. Default judgment was sought in respect of three of the four claims. It was held that this was an abuse of process and those claims were struck out. Written by Christopher Humby, barrister at Nexus Chambers.

Family analysis: Mr Justice Mostyn considered a former wife’s application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) against her former husband, who had died before the application could be adjudicated. Under consideration were whether the authorities in relation to applications under Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), as well as those under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), were binding in relation to MFPA 1984, Pt III claims. Sophie Groves, director, and Valeria Gampl, assistant solicitor, at Vardags consider the issues.

Construction contracts commonly provide that, if a party wishes to bring a claim under the contract, it must follow a prescribed procedure. This often requires the claiming party to give a particular notice, sometimes followed by a further notice and/or more detailed information, to the other party and/or contract administrator, which may have to be in a particular format and meet specific requirements as to content. Often, these notice provisions also contain what is commonly referred to as a ‘time bar’ provision, meaning that the claiming party must give the notice(s) within a specified period of time. If the time bar is a condition precedent, then a failure to comply with the provisions of the contract will mean that the claiming party loses its entitlement to bring the claim, no matter how strong its claim would otherwise have been. The use of such time bar clauses has become increasingly common and they now appear in some of the standard form contracts (see Conditions precedent in standard form contracts below). Most commonly, condition

Nature of rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 It is important for practitioners to understand the distinction between the rights conferred by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) and those provided by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). While CRA 2015 provides for contractual rights between the seller and the consumer, CPA 1987 confers rights against ‘producers’. CPA 1987 does not limit a claimant’s ability to pursue other remedies against that producer (or any other relevant person in the supply chain) such as negligence or through a claim for breach of contract. In practice it can therefore be expected that, where available, more than one cause of action might be advanced by a claimant. See Practice Notes: Product liability—claims in negligence and Product liability—claims in contract. For further guidance on CRA 2015, see Practice Note: Product liability—claims in contract. For guidance on the main defences to a claim under CPA 1987, see Practice Note: Defences to a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Potential defendants Liability

This flowchart sets out the process for claims by the Contractor or Employer under clause 20.2 of the FIDIC Red and Yellow Books 2017, which applies to:

This flowchart sets out the process for claims by the Contractor or Employer under clause 20.2 of the FIDIC Silver Book 2017, which applies to: • claims by the Employer for: ◦ additional payment or a reduction in the Contract Price, and/or ◦ an extension of the Defects Notification Period • claims by the Contractor for: ◦ additional payment, and/or ◦ an extension

Law360: All 10,400 members of the pension scheme of collapsed retailer Debenhams will have their promised pension benefits restored after Clara-Pensions announced on 14 March 2024 it would take on the scheme in the UK's second-ever superfund transaction.

The director of market oversight at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Clare Cole, has delivered a speech on the regulator’s plans to modernise the listing regime. Cole said the FCA will be aiming to move swiftly to make final rules before the end of 2021 on those areas it has consulted on specifically, ie dual class share structures, free float and minimum market capitalisation, so that 2022’s initial public offerings (IPOs) will be able to benefit from the initial round of changes. However, ‘the bigger picture will take longer to develop’.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 13 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Clariant of the European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid business of the Kilfrost Group. The transaction involves a horizontal overlap for the supply of aircraft de-/anti-icing fluids. Latest developments On 13 June 2016, the CMA announced that the investigation had been cancelled after the parties decided to abandon the transaction. The parties announced that they had decided to abandon the transaction on 10 June 2016 as a result of the CMA's provisional findings and the likelihood that the transaction would have been prohibited. Parties Clariant AG is a Swiss-based speciality chemicals company, headquartered near Basle. Clariant operates in 150 countries throughout the world. Kilfrost plc is a UK-based company headquartered in Newcastle specialising in heating and cooling products. The target business is Kilfrost's European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid business.