It is likely that the buyer will bear the risk of damage to the property that has occurred between the buyer’s inspection/survey and exchange of contracts. The usual statement in a sale contract (see, for example, clause 7.2.3 in Precedent: Contract for sale—freehold, vacant possession or clause 7.1.3 in Precedent: Contract for sale (residential)—freehold, vacant possession (which incorporates the Standard Conditions of Sale, Fifth Edition)) is to the effect that the property is sold subject to and where

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The Court of Appeal had to consider the correct approach to remoteness in assessing whether a single event could be considered causative of the insured loss in the context of business interruption insurance. In a clause merely requiring a connection between the single ‘event’ or ‘occurrence’ (as opposed to a reference a single ‘cause’), the search for causation, or for the single source of the losses will be much lighter touch. In turn, this means the requirement of remoteness will be applied with less rigour. Notwithstanding, this difference in wordings, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the concept of remoteness applies in both contexts requiring that ‘the causative link…[is] a significant rather than a weak one’. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Commercial Analysis: A discussion of the case of Su (also known as Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto) v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd and another [2018] EWCA Civ 1115 in which the Court of Appeal considered section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Mr Su had sought to argue an extension of the limitation time period on the grounds that he did not have the necessary knowledge until a time less than three years before issue and that therefore summary judgment should not have been entered against him on the grounds of a time bar. However, the summary judgment at first instance was affirmed—Mr Su had had sufficient knowledge of a potential claim when at court and the Court of Appeal had determined that there was a good arguable case that he had suffered the damage and not just when a court finally determined that he had suffered the damage. Accordingly, his three years had already run out before he issued. Written by Rosamund Baker, a tenant at Selborne Chambers.

Commercial analysis: It is trite law that the absence of agreement on essential terms may prevent a contract from coming into existence on the ground of uncertainty. However, where a contract has come into existence, the use of words such as ‘to be agreed’ in respect of future executory obligations is not necessarily fatal to the contract’s continued existence. All will depend on the facts and on the construction of the words that the parties have used in their purported agreement. Dimitris Anassis, partner, and Reema Shour, professional support lawyer, both at Hill Dickinson, consider the court’s decision in KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH.

The Department for International Trade (DIT) has released a joint declaration with Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioner (HMTC) on the establishment of the UK-Uruguay Trade Dialogue. DIT has said that on 15 September 2021, the Minister for International Trade, Ranil Jayawardena, met with the Foreign Minister of Uruguay, Ambassador Francisco Bustillo, to discuss strengthening the nations' trading relationship. Following this visit, HMTC to Latin America and the Caribbean, Jonathan Knott, met with the Director-General of International Economic Affairs to formally establish the United Kingdom-Uruguay Trade Dialogue. The Trade Dialogue aims to promote trade and investment between the nations.

The Extradition Treaty which is in place between the UK and Kuwait has been presented to Parliament. The Treaty was signed in Kuwait on 15 December 2016 and entered into force on 10 March 2021. The Treaty provides for the extradition of any person who is wanted for trial or punishment in the requesting state for an extraditable offence.

Law360, London: Since the launch in November 2022 of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, there have been numerous articles asking whether it or other forms of AI will replace the need for lawyers, or even put them out of business altogether.

An accident that is more serious than the one the plant was designed for.

Employment analysis: Matthew Banham, partner, and Sara Thomas Arano, associate, at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, explain, a workplace complaint raised through a global hotline or US-led investigation may now require separate UK Conduct Rules and fitness and propriety assessments under the FCA’s new guidance.

Beyond a reasonable doubt describes the very high standard of proof required in criminal trials before a defendant may lawfully be convicted. It requires the jury (or judge sitting alone) to be sure of the accused’s guilt so that no reasonable uncertainty remains on the evidence.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is the criminal standard of proof and is generally explained to juries in everyday language such as being “sure” or “satisfied so that you are sure.” Courts emphasise that it does not require absolute certainty, but goes significantly beyond the civil standard of “balance of probabilities.”The phrase is largely a common law concept rather than precisely defined in statute. Its meaning and practical application are developed in appellate case law, including guidance on jury directions and summing‑up. Misdescribing the standard of proof, or diluting it, can amount to a material misdirection and ground of appeal.Usage and effect are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, with minor differences in judicial wording and practice. It is central to safeguarding the presumption of innocence and minimising the risk of wrongful conviction.

Corporate Crime analysis: The Divisional Court held that section 37(1) of the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995) does not confer an unlimited prosecution power on the Environment Agency (EA), but does authorise it to institute proceedings for any criminal offence, including common law conspiracy to defraud, where the prosecution is, in the EA’s opinion, calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of its functions. Permission to apply for judicial review challenging the EA’s prosecution was refused as unarguable. The court also set aside the claimant’s anonymity order. The decision confirms the breadth, but also the functional limits, of the EA’s prosecutorial powers and emphasises the strict requirements governing anonymity.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court dismissed a claim for negligence arising from a collision in which the first claimant (M) sustained life-changing injuries. Also dismissed was M's twin sister's secondary victim claim for alleged psychiatric injuries resulting from witnessing the event. His Honour Judge Howells held that the defendant driver was not negligent. The court found that the defendant was driving at no more than 20mph, which was deemed reasonably careful driving adjacent to a school 25 minutes after closing. Crucially, the evidence established that the young child emerged from behind a parked or stationary vehicle. Expert evidence confirmed that where a parked vehicle was present, the driver would have had insufficient time to react and avoid the collision, meaning no breach of duty was committed. Practitioners should note that this judgment reinforces the heavy burden on claimants to establish driver negligence in 'darting-out' cases, even when tragic injuries occur. It confirms that adherence to advisory speed limits (20mph) in school areas, combined with a finding that the child emerged from behind an obstruction, successfully defeats allegations that the driver failed to meet the standard of the reasonably careful driver. Written by Jennifer Dickinson, barrister at Cobden House Chambers.