Dispute Resolution analysis: the government has confirmed that there is no intention to legislate for Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) during this parliamentary session.

Commercial analysis: The court granted summary judgment in favour of Virgin Aviation (Virgin) on a claim for sums due under a contract with Alaska Airlines (Alaska), notwithstanding a defence of circuity of action based on a claim in unjust enrichment. The court found that the basis for the unjust enrichment claim was flawed as a matter of construction. However, in the alternative, the court held that the no set off clause would have precluded Alaska from relying on a defence of circuity to resist summary judgment. Written by Joshua Crow, barrister at One Essex Court.

Construction analysis: The Privy Council dismissed a contractor’s claim, confirming that work expressly or impliedly included within a FIDIC Yellow Book lump sum cannot constitute a variation and that compliance with the clause 20.1 28-day notice requirement for claims is a condition precedent to additional payment. The Privy Council held that all claimed variations fell within the contractor’s design responsibility and the contract specifications, with clauses 4.10 and 4.11 allocating site condition and price sufficiency risk to the contractor. The claims also failed for procedural non-compliance, as no timely clause 20.1 notice was given, and waiver or estoppel arguments were rejected because the Engineer lacked authority to amend contractual obligations and agreed formalities could not be displaced.

IP analysis: The court held that an account of profits is not available for an action in respect of unjustified threats under sections 26–26F of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA 1949). It seems likely that the same principle applies to other statutory remedies against unjustified threats in other IP statutes. The corollary of the decision is that it is not possible to use the reasoning discussed in Lifestyle Equities v sportsdirect.com Retail [2016] EWHC 2092 (Ch) to defer paying the large court fee for an unquantified money claim. Written by Michael Smith, barrister at Three Stone.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that a bank owed no duty of care to the Playboy Club for a negligent reference regarding a player at the club where the reference had been sought by the club, using the services of another company. Applying Hedley Byrne, Caparo and Customs and Excise Commissioner, it was 'difficult if not impossible' to describe the bank and the club as having a special relationship when the bank did not know of the club's existence and only knew that the reference was being requested on behalf of a company called Burlington. The relationship of the parties was not sufficiently proximate. If the club wished to remain anonymous then it was hardly just and reasonable for it to assert a duty of care was owed to it when it deliberately concealed its existence. Longmore LJ also considered (briefly and on an obiter basis only) the scope of any duty (had one been found to exist).

Personal Injury analysis: Adam Clemens, barrister at 7BR, examines a Court of Appeal decision that the automatic costs protection under the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) regime set out in CPR 44.13 to 44.16 does not apply when a personal injury claim is mixed with a non-personal injury claim. Such a mixed claim falls within CPR 44.16(2)(b), which provides an exception to the regime, and thus provides the court with a discretion, where ‘a claim is made for the benefit of the claimant other than a claim to which this Section applies’.

Planning analysis: Neil Collar, partner and head of planning law at Brodies LLP, discusses the judgment in Ineos Upstream Limited and another v The Lord Advocate which confirms that there is an emerging and unfinalised planning policy expressing no support on the part of the Scottish government for the development or extraction of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) in Scotland.

EU Law analysis: The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that the UPC has international jurisdiction for alleged infringement actions that originate outside the UPC’s Member States. Bianca Zagatta, associate at McDermott Will & Emery, discusses the decision in the case of Dish and Sling v AYLO.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about a pension bulk transfer to a master trust. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision

Local Government analysis: A local authority successfully resisted a claim for judicial review of its decision to terminate the funding for a claimant who had been accommodated by its adult social care department on a temporary basis since 2016. The funding for the temporary accommodation was provided under section 19(3) of the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014). Ealing’s position was that it was under no duty to provide this accommodation as the claimant had the right to seek housing under the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996). In addition, the local authority successfully resisted a claim that its decision to terminate the funding amounted to victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Written by Joshua Swirsky, barrister at Field Court Chambers.

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Miss D, CAS-58806-H1J6, the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) has rejected a complaint about the provision of incorrect information about a member’s retirement age which was provided many years before retirement. The DPO found that, while the statements were negligent and Miss D had acted in good faith, she should have contacted the Scheme at that time to obtain up to date information and she had also failed to mitigate her loss. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Court of Appeal rejected a claim against a credit card company under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) which had been brought by a third party beneficiary in a package holiday claim. The claimant’s husband had used his credit card to pay for a deposit for a package holiday with a subsidiary of Thomas Cook. The claimant suffered personal injury on the holiday and sued the tour operator, but the company then entered liquidation. She tried to join the credit card company, arguing that the term ‘debtor’ in CCA 1974, s 75 applied to her as she had a deemed claim in contract against the supplier under the Package Holidays Regulations. The court disagreed with the claimant, and held that the term ‘debtor’ was confined to the individual who was party to the credit agreement. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.