Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) was asked to consider two similar questions of interpretation of the Change Control Schedule of a 25 year PFI Agreement to provide coastal defences, relating to whether costs were recoverable where there was an increase in storm events in the second decade of the Agreement compared to the first decade. Following a detailed look at the drafting of the Agreement, the court held that the Schedule permitted the project company to claim for costs on a retrospective basis.

A non-trading entity such as a holding company can be a ‘trader’ for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

This case gives guidance on the court’s attitude to intervening in the appointment and instruction of an expert pursuant to an expert determination. It also considers the expert’s authority, the expert exceeding that authority and the leading case law in this area. In the case, the court refused to order disclosure of documents and information in the context of a Part 8 claim. This was because the disclosure sought was purportedly to assist the expert, however, the expert had not yet been appointed. Therefore no request for the documents had been made by the expert. Further, any disclosure order would not entitle the claimant to give the documents to the expert without leave of the court as the trial of the Part 8 claim had now finished.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that it could not revise an adjudicator’s decision on liability for his fees, even though it had reversed his decision on the merits of the case. Further, it found that a contractual interest rate of 2% above the Bank of England base rate was not, in the circumstances of the case, a ‘substantial remedy’ for late payment within the meaning of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (LPCD(I) A 1998).

Dispute Resolution analysis: Stephen Ryan, barrister at Three Stone, examines the High Court’s decision in 365 Business Finance Ltd v Bellagio Hospitality WB Ltd that priority was to be afforded to a judgment creditor whose High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) received a writ of control before another judgment creditor's HCEO received a writ of control. Therefore, although the debtor had made a payment to the second HCEO first, the money which the second creditor thereby received would have to be paid over to the first creditor.

Law360, London: The High Court court signed off on proposed changes to a Lloyds Bank employee pension plan on 11 December 2019, allowing the Bank to add a paragraph that it says was inadvertently left out of three deeds and could have cost it £25m (US$32.9m).

TMT analysis: In granting an injunction to prevent further harassment and misuse of the claimant’s private information by an unknown defendant online, the court confirmed that a power to grant final injunctive relief against unknown defendants exists and in this case there was no real prospect of the defendant(s) successfully defending the claim.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Eleanor Temple, barrister of Kings Chambers, examines a Companies Court decision to grant relief under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) to the applicant joint liquidators of a company because a sale of the company's business constituted a transaction at an undervalue. The sale in question was under an asset sale agreement between the company and the second respondent company less than five months before the initial appointment of joint administrators to the company.

TMT analysis: The High Court has granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in a claim brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997). The case provides useful guidance for the type of conduct that meets the legal threshold for harassment. It also contains an important procedural clarification as to when the procedure under CPR Pt 7 should be used for harassment claims. Written by Neil O'Sullivan and James Headington, Osborne Clarke LLP.

What is the status of the court guides? The court guides seek to provide a general explanation of the work and practice of the various courts, with practical information to be used in conjunction with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to ensure the effective management of proceedings in those courts. The guides are not to be regarded as a substitute for the CPR, but an explanation of how the rules and practice directions are applied in those courts. The guides do not have the status of a Practice Direction and do not have the force of law but parties are expected to comply with them and a failure to do so may influence the way in which the court exercises its powers

Property Disputes analysis: In Kerr v Poplar HARCA [2024] EWCA Civ 120, the Court of Appeal considered whether the court had jurisdiction to vary a suspended possession order (SPO) made following a possession claim for rent arrears, to make an outright order for possession on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. The court held that a SPO originally based on a discretionary ground for possession can be converted into an outright possession order even where the new ground for possession is mandatory. Written by Laura Tweedy, mediator and barrister, and Callum Reid-Hutchings, barrister, both of Gatehouse Chambers.

Law360: The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is nothing about a company's AI invention that differentiates it from a typical computer programme under UK law, meaning that it cannot be protected by a patent.