Dispute Resolution analysis: Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker has delivered an important decision on whether costs are capped in circumstances where a CFA is terminated mid-proceedings. The decision is of widespread importance since most CFAs (including the standard Law Society terms) ordinarily offer protection to the claimant by limiting the maximum costs which the client will be liable to pay to their solicitors. However, the situation may differ where a client initially instructs solicitors under a CFA then sacks them before the conclusion of the claim. In short, the court held that costs recoverable by a solicitor from their (former) client will not be capped where: (1) the client terminates the CFA with their initial representatives (2) the client does so before the claim has been ‘won’ and (3) the sacked solicitors exercise their right to seek costs from the former client at that point rather than await the outcome of the claim (ie to ‘stick’ rather than ‘twist’). Written by Jeremy McKeown, barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) dismissed applications for summary judgment, holding that once negotiations include a ‘subject to contract’ reservation, that conditionality remains unless all parties expressly agree it has been removed or such agreement is necessarily implied. The court made clear that acceptance of terms in a ‘subject to contract’ agreement cannot in itself lead to a binding agreement. The underlying dispute concerned the collapse of a nursery roof at Baltimore Wharf, with damages estimated at over £2m. Settlement negotiations marked ‘subject to contract’ culminated in the claimant's solicitor confirming on 24 September 2024 that ‘the Settlement Agreement with WSP's amends is agreed’. However, the agreed settlement agreement remained marked ‘Subject to contract and without prejudice save as to costs’, with nothing in the email exchange demonstrating abandonment of this clear conditionality. The court found no evidence of necessary implication that the subject to contract reservation had been removed, noting that subsequent conduct of the parties, including agreements to stay proceedings was inconsistent with parties believing a binding settlement existed.

Public Law analysis: In the summer of 2022, after the resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party ran an internal contest to determine who would replace him as leader of the party, and as Prime Minister. During the campaign, Tortoise Media, a UK-based media company, wrote to the Conservative Party asking nine questions. They submitted these questions because, to test the integrity of the Conservative Party’s internal election processes, Tortoise Media had registered a tortoise, two overseas nationals, and a fictional person to vote in the election. The Conservative Party declined to answer Tortoise Media’s questions replying, ‘the Party is not a public body and does not carry out public functions.’ Political parties are not public authorities within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and so Tortoise Media instead argued there had been violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). To invoke Article 10, however, Tortoise Media had to satisfy section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and demonstrate that the Conservative Party was exercising a public function. Written by Dr Leah Trueblood, senior lecturer in Law at The University of Surrey.

Commercial analysis: As our everyday use of language, technology, and business practice continues to evolve, the use of emojis can result in the inadvertent acceptance of legally binding contracts or terms. It’s the latest potential pitfall for negotiating commercial parties. Written by Louise Norbury-Robinson, director at Walker Morris LLP.

IP analysis: Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL (‘Iconix’), which owns Umbro, succeeded in the Court of Appeal for its trade mark claim. Lord Justice Arnold overturned the first instance decision and held that there was a likelihood of confusion. He looked at the post-sale context and found that the defendant’s mark could look like the claimant’s double diamond, and that there was a likelihood of confusion. Written by Giles Parsons, a partner at Browne Jacobson LLP, and Gavin Gill, an associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that, where a main contractor had issued a claim form with only ‘very general’ details of its allegations of defective work against the defendants, this was not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The judgment suggests that main contractors faced with claims by their employers may be able to raise proceedings against their own supply chain (with a view to ‘passing down’ liability) for the purpose of interrupting limitation, even without full details of the employer’s case against them—provided they have a rudimentary ‘known basis’ for their claims. Note that this judgment is dated July 2024, but was only recently made available on BAILII.

Employment analysis: ‘Volunteer’ is not a term of art and the legal status of all volunteers will depend upon the construction of the documents as a whole. The employment tribunal in this case had erred by finding that there was no contract (and therefore no worker status) where the claimant had to make a claim for remuneration rather than receiving payment automatically, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Where included in the SPA/APA, It gives the buyer the option to claim under the indemnity, in addition to its ability to claim damages for breach of warranty. The clause is drafted as a covenant to pay the buyer a sum equal to its losses. This is because a covenant to pay is treated as the payment of a liquidated debt and will allow the buyer to obtain summary judgment for that debt.

Mealey’s: A District of Columbia federal judge on 30 September 2025 granted summary judgment and confirmed an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitral award worth more than €290.6m in favor of two Dutch renewable energy investors against the Kingdom of Spain, while Spain’s petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court regarding a jurisdictional ruling in the case remains pending.

This is the risk-free rate that is now used as a base for EONIA and which will ultimately replace it. It reflects the wholesale euro unsecured overnight borrowing costs of euro area banks—see LIBOR transition.