A wall that is not part of a building that stands on land belonging to different owners and is used or constructed to be used for separating adjoining land.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court considered a series of applications by the first defendant, Pitmans, seeking to set aside orders extending the time period for service of the claim from which pre-existed Pitmans’ addition to the proceedings as a substituted defendant. The court also considered Pitmans’ application to set aside an order substituting it as a defendant to the claim. These applications were rejected on the basis that Pitmans did not have standing to seek to set aside the orders extending time for service of the claim form because the right to apply to set aside an order pursuant to CPR 3.3(5) applies only to the parties to that order. Further, the court rejected Pitmans’ application to disallow its substitution pursuant to CPR 17.2 because it was in the interests of justice to allow the claim to proceed against Pitmans. Further, following Pitalia v NHS England, the court granted relief to correct the claimants’ error of procedure in not ticking the ‘dispute jurisdiction’ box on the acknowledgement of service form and not raising a CPR 11 application in their strike out application. Written by Anna Gilbert, solicitor (solicitor advocate), Hausfeld & Co LLP.

A wall that forms part of a building which stands on land belonging to different owners or which separates buildings belonging to different owners.

This Practice Note answers some of the frequently asked questions that may arise when considering works on a party wall or where a neighbour is proposing works. It considers the position where the adjoining owner consents to your proposed works and where consent is refused or you receive no response, and where there is damage to a neighbour’s wall. Who has responsibility for repairing a party wall? It will be important to consider where the boundary lies. If the wall is wholly on the land of one owner, they may be liable in nuisance for allowing the wall to fall into disrepair. See Practice Note: Private nuisance—general principles. In any case, under section 2 of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996), the parties have various rights relating to repairs and adjoining owners may be required to contribute to costs. See Practice Note: Party walls—shared costs and security for damage. Consider also the reason for the disrepair. If the wall has been damaged by one party, they may be liable in nuisance, negligence or

This Practice Note explains the circumstances in which the cost of party wall works can be shared, the right of adjoining owners and building owners to seek security for damage and expenses, and the surrounding case law. Sharing the cost of party wall works The cost of works under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) (referred to in PWA 1996 as ‘expenses’) must be met by the building owner, unless an exception applies. These exceptions include: • where a building owner builds a new party wall or party fence wall, to which the adjoining owner consents, the expense is shared between the two owners having regard to the use made (or to be made) by each owner, and to the cost of labour and materials prevailing at the time of that use. There is therefore scope for a building owner to receive no contribution at the time a new wall is built (because the adjoining owner will make no use of it at that time), but to seek payment in future if (for

International construction projects can be complex and involve many participants from different and specialist disciplines over many years. Disputes are rife and the use of expert witnesses in consequent arbitration proceedings is extremely common. A London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) study in 2018 noted that it registers some 300 new arbitrations each year and most, if not all, involve the use of experts who play an integral role in the arbitration process. In construction arbitrations, experts are most commonly used to provide opinions on regarding time-related claims, and on technical and quantum issues. There may also be expert evidence required on legal issues where the tribunal and/or parties’ lawyers do not have the relevant expertise, for example on foreign law matters. There are often several experts appointed, each covering a specific area of evidence and their evidence can often be a significant factor in the tribunal’s decision. Two sorts of experts can be found in international construction arbitration—those appointed by the tribunal and those appointed by the parties. Party-appointed experts are most common and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 19 April 2012; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline OFT Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I investigation into anti-competitive practices in relation to the pricing of passenger fuel surcharges (case number CE/7691–06) Parties British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic Airways (Virgin) Market(s) Scheduled

Claimant found to be engaged at the time of the accident in the transporting of illegal drugs for re-sale failed against insurers by virtue of Clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of MIB Agreement

EU Law analysis: The court held that Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004, the EU Air Passenger Rights Compensation Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, where a flight is cancelled, the passenger is deemed to have given their signed agreement to reimbursement of the cost of the ticket by way of travel voucher where they have filled out an online form on the carrier’s website in which they chose a voucher over cash; so long as the passenger was able to make an informed choice and give consent to the reimbursement by way of travel voucher. This presupposes that the carrier provided to the passenger clear and full information on the various means of reimbursement available and did not require additional steps to obtain reimbursement in one form over another. Written by Kathryn Ward, of counsel at DLA Piper UK LLP.

Passing off is a law'>common law action used to protect unregistered trade mark rights in the UK. The three principal elements which must be demonstrated in order to succeed in a passing off case are goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the judge’s finding that the appellant had no goodwill associated with one of its signs—‘the ATHLETA Dark Pinwheel’, was rationally insupportable having regard to his other findings. This was against a background of findings on a revocation for non-use challenge to a mark (labelled ‘the ATHLETA Combination Mark’) which failed because genuine use was shown and, when the judge below reviewed the evidence, he took use of the ATHLETA Dark Pinwheel to be use of the ATHLETA Combination Mark. The appellant had made over £1.1m in sales to John Lewis of Athleta-branded products and there was photographic evidence of the clothing in the stores, including conspicuous use of the ATHLETA Dark Pinwheel. However, when it came to goodwill, the judge found none associated with that sign. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against that finding. Written by Michael Smith, barrister at Three Stone Chambers.

IP analysis: In a judgment from 2 August 2019 that has now become available, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has dismissed a claim for passing off, in a dispute between two businesses which run live music events in the form of clubbing holidays. The claimant, Innovation Events Management Ltd, claimed to have acquired goodwill in connection with the names ‘Innovation in the Sun,’ ‘Inno in the Sun’ and ‘In the Sun’ in relation to its events, and the central issue before the court was whether the defendants, Unity In the Sun Limited and its two directors, were liable for passing off as a result of using the name ‘Unity in the Sun’ in connection with their events. The court considered the three limbs of the test for passing off and found that the claim was not supported by the evidence. In doing so, it highlighted the importance of adducing compelling evidence that a substantial number of members of the public have been deceived by the defendant’s use of the name complained of, to support a claim of misrepresentation in a passing off case.