Links: ScotC
Judges: Lord Eassie
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190926
Links: ScotC
Judges: Lord Eassie
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190926
proposed contract for the provision of cleaning services
References: [2010] EWHC 3237 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: David Donaldson QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Statutes: Public Contracts Regulations 2006
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.655157
ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market in gas insulated switchgear projects – New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court – Fines – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of good administration – Rights of the defence – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Erroneous application – Starting amount – Extent of contribution to the infringement – Deterrence multiplier
References: T-409/12, [2016] EUECJ T-409/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:17
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559134
Hearing of the claimant’s on notice application for interim injunctive relief.
References: [2020] EWHC 1816 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 21 September 2020; Ref: scu.653069
References: [2018] CAT 7
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 15 May 2019
Ref: 636186
References: [2018] CAT 8
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 02 May 2019
Ref: 636187
Links: ScotC
Coram: Lord Drummond Young
Ratio:
Last Update: 19 February 2017
Ref: 190905
References: [2010] EWHC B8 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 22-Nov-16
Ref: 420872
References: [1976] 1 WLR 989, [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621, [1976] 3 All ER 570
Coram: Lord Wilberforce
Ratio:In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility is not decisive. The real issue is what evidence of surrounding circumstances may ultimately be allowed to influence the question of interpretation. That depends on what meanings the language read against the objective contextual scene will let in. Thirdly, the enquiry is objective: the question is what reasonable persons, circumstanced as the actual parties were, would have had in mind.
Lord Wilberforce commented on the Wooler case saying: ‘I think that all of their Lordships are saying, in different words, the same thing — what the court must do must be to place itself in thought in the same factual matrix as that in which the parties were’.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘No contracts are made in a vacuum: there is always a setting in which they have to be placed. The nature of what is legitimate to have regard to is usually described as ‘the surrounding circumstances’ but this phrase is imprecise: it can be illustrated but hardly defined. In a commercial contract it is certainly right that the court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market in which the parties are operating.’
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 02-Jul-16
Ref: 184430
References: [1921] AC 444
Coram: Lord Phillimore
The question was whether a document, describing itself as a bill of lading but written in the form of a receipt of goods for (rather than of) shipment, was a bill of lading for the purposes of the Act, which set out the jurisdiction of the admiralty court for an action in rem. The claim had been brought by consignees which provided for delivery to the shipper’s order.
Held: It was a bill of lading within the Act. The court noted that it purported to be negotiable. If this document is a bill of lading, it is a negotiable instrument. Other incidents of the document were standard for a bill of lading, such as detailed terms and conditions in familiar form; the fact that the document was called a bill of lading many times in the course of such provisions and that it was made subject to the US Charter Act; the fact that it provides that ‘If required by the shipowner, one signed bill of lading, duly endorsed, must be surrendered on delivery of the goods’; and that it ‘ends in the time honoured form’, viz ‘In witness whereof the master or agent of said vessel has signed three bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, of which if one is accomplished, the others shall be void’ The court emphasised that the document would work as merchants would expect a bill of lading to work. It accorded wit hstandard commercial practiceand the parties agreed to call it a bill of lading, and entered into obligations and acquired rights proper to a bill of lading. All the other incidents in its very detailed language are such as are proper to such a document.
Statutes: Admiralty Court Act 1861
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 31-Jan-16 Ref: 181886
References: T-28/11, [2015] EUECJ T-28/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:995
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons
Last Update: 31-Dec-15 Ref: 557014
References: [2009] EWHC B39 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
References: C-612/12, [2014] EUECJ C-612/12
Links: Bailii
Coram: T. von Danwitz, P
ECJ Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen – Setting of a rebate for road builders – Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Article 27 – Rights of the defence – Reduction of the fine
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 27
References: [2014] EWHC 1195 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
References: [2013] EWHC B8 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
References: [2014] EWHC 1194 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Leggatt J
References: [2015] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Simon Brown QC HHJ
Claim for damages for breach of contract and database rights, delivery up of confidential information and injunctive relief against Mr Solanki, a former employee of the Claimants.
References: [1976] 1 WLR 989, [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621, [1976] 3 All ER 570
Coram: Lord Wilberforce
In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility is not decisive. The real issue is what evidence of surrounding circumstances may ultimately be allowed to influence the question of interpretation. That depends on what meanings the language read against the objective contextual scene will let in. Thirdly, the enquiry is objective: the question is what reasonable persons, circumstanced as the actual parties were, would have had in mind.
Lord Wilberforce commented on the Wooler case saying: ‘I think that all of their Lordships are saying, in different words, the same thing — what the court must do must be to place itself in thought in the same factual matrix as that in which the parties were’.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘No contracts are made in a vacuum: there is always a setting in which they have to be placed. The nature of what is legitimate to have regard to is usually described as ‘the surrounding circumstances’ but this phrase is imprecise: it can be illustrated but hardly defined. In a commercial contract it is certainly right that the court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market in which the parties are operating.’
This case cites:
This case is cited by: