The recent Court of Appeal decision in Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry (trading as Hitex) and Others v. Uniserve [1] provides helpful guidance on: inducement and reliance on misrepresentations; the extent to which an innocent party of a wrongful termination (which is not accepted) is required to complete its contractual obligations thereafter; and notice of delivery in “ex works” contracts.
Latest Articles
Remedy of Repudiatory Breaches – English Courts Will Take a Practical, Not Technical, Approach
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Kulkarni v. Gwent Holdings Ltd and Another confirms that repudiatory breaches may be remediable, and that the court will take a practical rather than a technical approach when determining whether a breach is capable of remedy.
High Court Refuses Non-Party Document Production in Support of Arbitration
The recent High Court decision in VXJ v. FY & others[1] provides guidance on the limits of the English courts’ powers to compel non-party document production in support of arbitration under sections 43 and 44(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act.
Blurred Lines and Flat Notes – Competition Appeal Tribunal Strikes Out Songwriters’ CPO Claim Against the Performing Right Society
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has struck out a class action brought by Blur drummer, David Rowntree, as the proposed class representative (PCR) on behalf of a class of songwriters against the Performing Right Society (PRS).[1]
Part 36 Offers and the Importance of Accounting for a Counterclaim
In Matière SAS v. ABM Precast Solutions Ltd,[1] the High Court held that a Part 36 offer made by the claimant represented a genuine offer to settle the claim but effectively offered nothing in respect of the counterclaim. Accordingly, despite having decisively won both the claim and the counterclaim, the claimant was not entitled to the huge costs benefits arising under Part 36 in respect of the costs of the counterclaim.
Tech Contracting: How to Draft and Act to Avoid Disputes – Part 2
In the second part of this five-article series, we examine another common problem in tech contracting, when the solution a customer buys isn’t up to scratch. What causes this, and how can you draft to avoid it?
UK Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Commissions: Hopcraft v. Close Brothers
On 1 August 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Hopcraft and another v. Close Brothers Limited,[1] a case with far-reaching implications for retail financial services at large.
English Court of Appeal Rules on Compensation for Data Breaches
The English Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment in Farley v. Paymaster (Equiniti)[1] on when compensation may be claimed for nonmaterial damage (such as distress or anxiety) arising out of breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).
Tech Contracting: How to Draft and Act to Avoid Disputes
PART 1 Technology. Every business needs it. You either build it yourself or buy it from a third party. As litigators focussed on tech disputes for decades, we’ve seen the same problems with IT outsourcing leading to court appearances again and again. The solutions aren’t groundbreaking – they lie in careful drafting and smart conduct during the contract performance. But in the pressure of finalising …
Warranty Claims: Notification and Service Requirements Under the Microscope (Again)
The English High Court’s judgment in Learning Curve (NE) Group Ltd v. Richard Lewis and Melanie Probert[1] concerned the alleged breach of warranties and an indemnity in a sale purchase agreement (SPA). The defendants put up a vigorous and multifaceted defence, resulting in an extremely wide-ranging judgment. While much of the analysis is highly fact dependent, two of the issues traversed are worth highlighting – notification of claims under an SPA and service of proceedings.