Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected an argument that a claim under National House-Building (NHBC) ‘Buildmark Choice’ policies was time-barred. The dispute concerned a claim under the policies for the additional costs of completing a housing project, resulting from a contractor’s insolvency. The NHBC contended that the claimant’s cause of action under the policy had accrued as soon as the contractor became insolvent, meaning that the claimant had failed to raise its claim within the applicable six-year limitation period. However, the court dismissed this argument on the basis that the insured risk was not the contractor’s insolvency itself, but the incurrence of the additional costs caused by the insolvency.

TMT analysis: The Court rejected Stability’s application for summary judgment or strike out of parts of Getty’s claim concerning Stability’s image-generation AI, Stable Diffusion. Getty pleaded only an inference of primary copyright and database infringement in the UK, based on members of Stability’s team residing and working there. However, Getty’s claim has a real prospect of success because of evidence potentially pointing to UK acts, unanswered questions and inconsistencies in Stability’s evidence and the potential impact of disclosure. Further, the trial judge should decide whether ‘article’ for the pleaded secondary copyright infringement claims covers software, since this was a novel question and not straightforward. Getty was also allowed to amend its pleadings. As well as illustrating the challenges of obtaining summary judgment or strike out for a claim based only on an inference, the judgment contains clues as to Stability’s litigation strategy in a case where, almost a year in, it is yet to file a defence. Written by Matt Hervey, head of Artificial Intelligence Law at Gowling WLG.

Construction analysis: The Commercial Court (Comm) applied a strict interpretation of the terms of an on-demand bond, which in particular prohibited the issuer from resisting payment pending further investigation or enquiry into the circumstances of the claim. This was despite the fact that the contractor on whose behalf the issuer had issued the bond had brought separate proceedings alleging that the employer/beneficiary owed them money for completing works under the contract.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE, sitting in the Commercial Court, held that the claimants in Catlin Syndicate Ltd & Ors v Weyerhaeuser Company were entitled to an order restraining the defendant from pursuing proceedings before the District Court in the State of Washington because the service of suit clause in the relevant excess layer insurance policy did not supersede the parties’ agreement to refer disputes to arbitration in London, in accordance with an arbitration clause that was incorporated into the policy by reference to the provisions of the lead underlying policy.

Dispute Resolution analysis: HHJ Pearce applied the Court of Appeal authority in Conlon v Royal & Sun Alliance to retrospectively reallocate a case to the small claims track. The claim consisted of a personal injury claim and a car damage claim. While the judge found that the claimant had not been dishonest in pursuing the injury claim, he accepted the defendant’s argument that it should not have been pursued. Had the claim been limited to the car damage claim, it would have been dealt with in the small claims court and, accordingly, the action was retrospectively re-allocated to the small-claims track with the resultant costs consequences for that track. Written by Richard Allen, senior consultant at Burcher Jennings.

In a significant ruling on open justice, Mr Justice Picken ruled that Spotlight on Corruption does not require court permission to publish the transcripts and jury bundle of a major Serious Fraud Office (SFO) bribery trial involving employees of Airbus subsidiary GPT Special Project Management Ltd. Spotlight on Corruption had argued that these documents should be published in order to enable the public better to understand the trial by reference to the material that was before the court. Picken J rejected arguments that publication must be shown as ‘necessary and desirable’, stating this would run counter to open justice principles and it should be for journalists to decide whether it is necessary or in the public interest to publish the transcripts.

Local Government analysis: Samantha Broadfoot QC, barrister at Landmark Chambers, examines the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appellant’s argument that injunctions granted against him and other alleged members of a gang under section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (PCA 2009) and section 1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ASBCPA 2014) were incompatible with his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Personal Injury analysis: Roger Mallalieu, barrister at 4 New Square, examines the High Court’s decision in Parsa v DS Smith PLC and another upholding a County Court ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs on an indemnity basis. The claimant’s final Part 36 offer to settle his low value personal injury claim arising out of a road traffic accident was only accepted by the defendants four months after the expiry of the 21-day period for acceptance and just a week before trial.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Mobile Telecommunications Company (‘the Company’), the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Newey, Lord Justice Snowden and Lady Justice Whipple) was asked to decide if the High Court had been right to dismiss a bankruptcy petition presented by the Company. The Company and Prince Hussam, a member of the Saudi royal family, had been in dispute for a number of years over unpaid arbitration awards amounting to around US$900m. The question for the court was whether Prince Hussam had ‘a place of residence in England and Wales’ for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The court considered that there was no realistic prospect of the Company persuading the court to reverse the High Court’s findings of fact. This decision will primarily be of interest to those who undertake bankruptcy work, but the discussion regarding the test of residence will also be helpful to civil practitioners more broadly. Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: Jamas Hodivala, barrister at 2 Bedford Row Chambers, advises that following Millmore and others v Environment Agency, employees and corporates now have some clearer guidance as to the Environment Agency’s investigatory powers and the obstruction offences contrary to sections 110(1) and (2) of the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995).

Planning analysis: In Herod Property v WCC, the High Court held that a developer relying on the ‘zero CIL’ exception may lawfully decide not to submit a notice of chargeable development or commencement notice, but that the collecting authority is not bound by that assessment. The court held that liability crystallises on commencement, that later purchasers do not inherit or share a liability already fixed at that point, and that the authority was entitled to determine liability on the information reasonably available to it. The judicial review was dismissed on all grounds.

Property Disputes analysis: What are the implications of a recent landmark decision, PG Lewins Limited v Hutchison 3G Limited and EE Limited, concerning the Electronic Communications Code and immunity? Kary Withers, partner, and Aimee Davies, associate, at Clarke Willmott LLP, examine the case.