In Houssein & Others v. London Credit Ltd & Another[1], the Court of Appeal considered the proper application of the common law rules on penalties to a default interest clause in a loan agreement. Contrary to the conclusion of the High Court, the Court of Appeal found that in light of relevant case law, the lender ‘inevitably’ had a legitimate interest in the enforcement of the obligation to repay the loan, which would justify a default interest clause.
UK Supreme Court Emphasises Importance of Mitigation in Sale of Goods Claims
In its judgment in Sharp Corporation Ltd v. Viterra BV[1] handed down last month, the UK Supreme Court held that damages for nonacceptance of goods should be determined by reference to the realisable value of the goods left in the seller’s hands in consequence of nonacceptance – and not on the basis of a notional substitute contract on the same terms as the parties’ contract.
Commercial Purpose Key to Interpreting Claims Notice Clauses
The English Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v. Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd[1] put commercial purpose at the heart of interpretation of a claims notice clause, thereby avoiding the technical minefield that has brought an end to otherwise valid claims so often in recent years.
MUR Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd: UK Supreme Court Allows Appeal
In a final twist to this long and winding litigation, the UK Supreme Court has allowed MUR Shipping’s appeal, holding that ‘reasonable endeavours’ provisions in force majeure clauses (express or implied) do not require parties to accept noncontractual performance.
Court of Appeal Considers Incorporation of Terms Into Online Contracts
In Parker-Grennan v. Camelot UK Lotteries Limited, the Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, what needs to be done to incorporate standard terms for goods or services into a contract which is made online.
No Carve Out for Fraud in Limitation Clause
In Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited v. University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation,[1] the High Court of England and Wales held that a limitation clause was drafted sufficiently broadly to limit liability even in cases of fraudulent performance of the contract.
Digital Asset Fraud: No Final Orders To Be Made Against Unidentifiable ‘Persons Unknown’
In its recent decision in Boonyaem v. Persons Unknown Category A, Persons Unknown Category B and INGFX Limited, the High Court of England and Wales addressed some of the key issues that have frequently arisen in cases of digital asset fraud. Notably, while the judge granted summary judgment against ‘persons unknown’ who were currently anonymous but identifiable, he refused to enter judgment against ‘persons unknown’ who were both anonymous and unidentifiable.
UK Supreme Court Confirms Requirements for Claims in ‘Knowing Receipt’
At the end of 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Byers and others v. Saudi National Bank[1]. Unanimously dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court definitively determined that a claim in knowing receipt cannot be brought if the claimant’s equitable interest in the relevant property has been extinguished – regardless of the fact that the recipient of the property was aware that it was being transferred to it in breach of trust.
Court of Appeal Sets Out Correct Approach to Material Adverse Change in Respect of Prospects Warranties
In an update to our May 2023 blog on the case, the Court of Appeal has held in Decision Inc Holdings Proprietary Ltd & Another v. Stephen Garbett & Another that the High Court erred both in its interpretation of and approach to a material adverse change in prospects warranty in a share purchase agreement.
The court also determined that a notice provision requiring Decision to summarise the nature of a claim and the amount claimed required it to give an amount claimed in respect of each of the alleged breaches.
Time Is On My Side: When Can Limitation Periods Be Extended in the UK?
A fundamental issue that all litigants will be well served to consider when bringing, or defending, any legal proceeding is the question of whether the claim has been brought in time. The inadvertent failure to bring a claim in time has served to fatally undermine several disputes that otherwise may have been successful.
The Limitation Act 1980 sets out the relevant time limits (known as ‘limitation periods’) in which different kinds of legal claims must be brought – and the time from which those limitation periods begin to run. Many aspects of the act are uncontroversial, but there was some lingering uncertainty concerning the interpretation of Section 32, which extends the normally applicable limitation periods in circumstances where facts relevant to the claimant’s cause of action have been deliberately concealed by the defendant.