In Bartoline Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc, costs were incurred by the policyholder in complying with statutory notices served on them by the Environment Agency. These costs were claimed against the insurers on the basis that they were covered by the phrase 'legal liability for damages' in the operative clause of the policy. The costs of complying with the statutory notices and the clean up costs incurred were held to be those needed to protect the public interest in the environment. The damages referred

In this Q&A, we have considered the applicable standard of care in clinical negligence claims. It is a fundamental principle in clinical negligence that a practitioner who specialises in any particular area of medicine must be judged by the ordinary standard of skill and care of that speciality. Therefore, a nurse is held to the standard of care of a reasonable nurse, a General Practitioner (GP) to the standard of care of a reasonable GP, a consultant neurosurgeon to the standard of a reasonable

There are three types of misrepresentation: • fraudulent misrepresentation; • negligent misrepresentation; and • innocent misrepresentation The remedies vary for each type of misrepresentation and therefore more information is required regarding the context in which the misrepresentation has occurred. The starting point is however, that, the court will award damages to the injured party for losses caused from relying on the misrepresentation (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co). Fraudulent misrepresentation would occur where the vendor had deliberately made a false representation to the buyer without belief in its truth or recklessly see (Derry v Peek). In quantifying the damages payable, the court confirmed in Eco 3 Capital Ltd v Ludsin Overseas Ltd that a false representation must be made, the vendor must know it is false/reckless

See Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd v Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd. It was held in that case, however, that the reinsurer was bound to follow its cedant’s settlement and indemnify it on the basis that the property damage and business interruption claims arose out of a single ‘loss occurrence’ and therefore fell to be aggregated under the reinsurance. In reinsurance aggregation cases, is it crucial to focus on the aggregating language in the reinsurance

The statutory provision dealing most directly with the potential risk posed by opening windows in the workplace is regulation 15(2) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (W(HSW) Regs 1992), SI 1992/3004. W(HSW) Regs 1992, SI 1992/3004, reg 15(2) provides, so far as relevant, as follows: ‘No window shall be in a position when open which is likely to expose any person in a workplace to a risk to his health and safety.’ W(HSW) Regs 1992, SI 1992/3004, reg 14 covers the related issue of the glazing specifications for windows. Reference should also be made to section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242. It follows from the primary relevance of W(HSW) Regs 1992, SI 1992/3004, reg 15(2) that the most relevant guidance to be considered

‘Distribution’ is given a very wide definition for the purpose of Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). It is every description of distribution of a company’s assets to its members, whether in cash or otherwise, except: • an issue of bonus shares (whether fully-paid or partly-paid), and • certain: ◦ reductions of share capital ◦ redemptions of shares ◦ share buybacks, and ◦ distributions of assets to members on the winding up of a company A distribution in

Since the commencement of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) (on 1 January 1997), any trust of property which consists of or includes land (apart from land that is settled land or to which the Universities and College Estates Act 1925 applies) is a trust of land (see TOLATA 1996, s 1). The effect of TOLATA 1996, s 23(2) is to import the general definition of

For the purpose of this Q&A we have assumed that it is the headlease (rather than the sublease) that has been forfeited. Forfeiture is often described as a Draconian remedy, allowing the landlord to exercise a contractual right (in the event that the lease gives such a right, as it invariably will) to bring the lease to an end if there has been a breach of its terms. For all breaches save rent arrears, it is necessary for the landlord to give to the tenant an opportunity to remedy the breach by serving a notice in compliance with section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). Section 138 of the County

Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) enables anyone to apply to the relevant local planning authority for a certificate of lawfulness confirming whether: ‘(a) any existing use of buildings or other land is lawful, (b) any operations which have been carried out in, on, over or under land are lawful, or (c) whether any other matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted is lawful’ Uses and operations are lawful at any time if no enforcement action may be taken and they do not constitute a contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice then in force. TCPA 1990, s 191(6)

As the subject matter is not certain and there is a range of opinions on the matter, we have sought guidance from our experts, including barristers, set out below. Our first expert, Emily Knowles, responded with the following: ‘Planning agreements pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), made between a local planning authority and those with an interest in land, can impose both positive and negative obligations upon an interested person requiring operations or activities on land, restricting the development or use of the land, or requiring money to be paid. Case law has established a principle that the TCPA 1990 is a “comprehensive statutory code”, most famously in Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] AC 132 and reaffirmed in Wood v Secretary of State for Communities [2015] EWHC 2368. It is this which raises the question

We have not been able to identify any guidance on this particular point. The HMRC IHTM14591: The Charge to Tax and section 266 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 do not seem to deal with chargeable lifetime transfers (CLTs) and potentially exempt transfers (PETs) made on the same day (rather two CLTs made on the same day). We are not aware of any particular

The Drafting Notes to clause: Control definition state: ‘…two options are offered in the suggested definition of the term “control”. The first option is that this term is defined by reference to section 1124 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010; this is a comprehensive, but complex definition. The second option may be more appropriate for straightforward transactions.’ Often in commercial contracts, the term ‘change of control’ is construed by reference to the definition of ‘control’. Therefore, how complex the structure of the parties to the contract, the type of transaction being entered into, the intentions of the parties, the bargaining power of the parties, and the clause within which control is used will be a factor in determining which