Category: Contract

CB (A Child By Her Mother and Next Friend) v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust: QBNI 6 Jun 2015

CB, brings this action alleging medical negligence in relation to an operation which was performed on 12 November 2007. The purpose of the operation was to burst a cyst on her kidney. At the date of the operation she was one year old having been born in November 2006. The operation was to be performed as a day case. It was not an open procedure. During the course of the operation the plaintiff’s small bowel was perforated and she received a laceration of her bladder. The defendant’s admit liability for these injuries and for the consequences that ensued. After the operation the damage to the plaintiff’s bowel and bladder were not appreciated and she was discharged. That evening, at home, she became extremely unwell with abdominal distension and sepsis caused, as things subsequently transpired, by the leaking of material from her bowel into her abdomen. She was re-admitted to hospital. She was extremely unwell.

Stephens J
[2015] NIQB 44
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland, Professional Negligence, Contract

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.549860

Palmali Shipping Sa v Litasco Sa: ComC 1 Oct 2020

This judgment follows the hearing of a number of applications in an action in which the claimant currently seeks damages of c.US$1.9 billion under what it contends was a long-term contract of affreightment with the defendant.

Mr Justice Foxton
[2020] EWHC 2581 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.657564

Mad Atelier International Bv v Manes: ComC 9 Dec 2021

Claim by an international restaurant chain (the Claimant being MAD Atelier International BV, a Dutch company, part of the Dogus Group primarily based in Turkey), in deceit (alternatively breach of contract) against the Defendant Axel Manes, a renowned French chef, executive chef of L’Atelier de Joel Robuchon in St. Germain one of the youngest chefs to obtain a Michelin star.

Sir Michael Burton GBE,
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
[2021] EWHC 3335 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.670494

Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council: CA 20 May 1996

Builder’s Guarantee Ultra Vires LA

The council set out to provide a swimming pool using powers under s.19 of the 1976 Act. Purporting to use powers under s.111 of the 1972 Act, it set up a company to develop a site by building a leisure pool and time-share units, with a view to selling the time-share units to pay for the cost of building the pool. The council gave a guarantee to help the company to finance the project, and on the strength of this the company obtained a facility from the bank. The sale of the time-share units proved unsatisfactory and the company went into liquidation. The bank sued the council under the guarantee to recover the sums owed to it by the company.
Held: The guarantee was ultra vires where it had been given to a company when the authority was acting outside it’s proper powers. Where a statutory corporation purports to enter into a contract which it is not empowered by the relevant statute to enter into, the corporation lacks the capacity to make the supposed contract. This lack of capacity means that the document and the agreement it contains do not have effect as a legal contract. It exists in fact but not in law. It is a legal nullity. The purported contract which is in truth not a contract does not confer any legal rights on either party. Neither party can sue on it. Any third party dealing with a local authority should be aware of that fact [of limited capacity and competence] and of the potential legal risk.
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘The discretion of the court in deciding whether to grant any remedy is wide one. It can take into account many considerations, including the needs of good administration, delay, the effect on third parties, and the utility of granting the relevant remedy.’

Hobhouse LJ
Times 20-May-1996, [1997] QB 306
Local Government Act 1972 111, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 819
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council QBD 17-Jun-1994
A Local Authority’s guarantee for its own company was void, having been given for impermissible reasons. . .
Applied – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .

Cited by:
Cited – Stretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Kilby v Basildon District Council Admn 26-Jul-2006
Tenants complained that the authority landlord had purported to vary a clause in his secure tenancy agreement which gave certain management rights to tenants.
Held: The powers to let on secure tenancies were governed by statute. The clause . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA 20-Oct-2009
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Local Government, Contract, Company, Banking

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.79620

Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd v KI Holdings Co Ltd and Another: ComC 22 May 2015

The defendant company had contracted to supply the claimant with seats for their aircraft, but seats were delivered either late or not at all. The parties disputed the extent and nature of the damages payable, and in particular the duty to mitigate losses.

Leggatt J
[2015] EWHC 1476 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Damages, Contract

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547580

Waterman Transport Ltd v Torchwood Properties Ltd: TCC 17 Apr 2015

The claimant, is a company which provides professional engineering services, was retained by the defendant, which was a property development company engaged in seeking to develop a site in Devon, and so the background on the pleadings at least is that the defendant obtained a quotation from the claimant for the provision of various services, including flood risk, transport and ecology assessments for the development.

Akenhead J
[2015] EWHC 1446 (TCC)
Bailii

Contract

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547006

Hall v Maritek Bahamas Ltd: PC 18 May 2015

The Bahamas – the court was asked whether negotiations had concluded in a binding contract for the sale of land where the buyer had not yet required the necessary permission, as a non-resident, to acquire land, and the contract was conditional upon such.

Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Gill (Scotland)
[2015] UKPC 23
Bailii

Commonwealth, Contract, Land

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546863

Chelsfield Advisers Llp v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company and Another: ChD 15 May 2015

Application for summary judgment in respect of an agreement relating to the proposed redevelopment of the site of the embassy of the United States of America in Grosvenor Square.
Held: The court considered the authorities and principles to be applied when considering an implied term of trust and confidence. In certain categories of contract, specifically contracts of employment, there may be such an implied term implied by law as an incident of all such contracts. However such a term should not be implied here: ‘Accordingly, Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20 is authority for the proposition that there may be implied by law as an incident of all contracts of a certain description (in that case, contracts of employment) mutual obligations that each party will not conduct itself in such a way as, assessed objectively, is likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence that is required if their relationship is to continue in the manner that the contract implicitly envisages.
In my judgment, that is a far cry from the implied term for which Mr Choo-Choy contends in the present case, which (a) does not relate to a class of contract in respect of which any such implication has previously been recognised in any decided case to which I have been referred, (b) does not depend upon one party conducting itself in breach of an implied promissory obligation, and (c) would give rise to a right to terminate the contract not on the basis of any objective criteria but instead on the subjective basis that the other party genuinely considers that trust and confidence has broken down. In this regard, in argument Mr Choo-Choy made clear that the test for which he contended was that loss of trust and confidence had to be genuine or honest, but did not have to be reasonable.’
Many of the arguments advanced in support of the alleged implied term could be made in relation to the implication of a duty of the utmost good faith, but that outside those categories of contract where such a duty was implied as a matter of law, such as insurance contracts, the courts would not imply such a duty: ‘although a duty of good faith is implied by law as an incident of certain categories of contract (including contracts of employment), the general rule in commercial contracts is that ‘If the parties wish to impose such a duty they must do so expressly’ . . I consider that the case is stronger still for saying that if the parties wish to produce the result that each of them has the right to terminate the contract in the event that it loses trust and confidence in the other, even when the other party is not in breach of contract and if that may be unreasonable, then they should do expressly.’

Richard Spearman QC
[2015] EWHC 1322 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mr H TV Ltd v ITV2 Ltd ComC 8-Oct-2015
The claimant had contracted with the defendant for the production of a series of reality TV shows featuring celebrities. After severe personal clashes between the people involved on the claimants side, the contract was terminated. The claim was that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546844

Bikam Ood Central Investment Group Sa v Adria Cable Sarl: ComC 15 Mar 2012

Claimants’ application to strike out paragraphs 33-39 of the counterclaim pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) or for summary judgment under CPR Part 24 in relation to these paragraphs (point 1) or alternatively a declaration that the Defendant’s counterclaim is subject to a contractual limitation of liability (point 2).

Mr Justice Simon
[2012] EWHC 621 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.452305

Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: CA 23 Apr 2015

The court was asked whether a clause in bills of lading providing for English jurisdiction is, as the respondent claims, an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The respondent denied the jurisdiction of the UK courts.

Elias, Beatson, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 401
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545935

Unite The Union v Liverpool Victoria Banking Services Ltd and Others: CA 25 Mar 2015

‘The issue that divides the parties is as to the extent of Unite’s entitlement to commission from LV under two agreements made with LV before the merger, under which LV agreed to provide various services to the members of each union and the relevant union would, in certain circumstances, be entitled to commission.’

Jackson, Briggs, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 285
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544739

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Nobu Su/Hsin Chi Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Morimoto) and Others: ComC 5 Nov 2014

Cooke J
[2014] EWHC 3611 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 13-Feb-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.538314

Tael One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley and Co International Plc: SC 11 Mar 2015

This appeal raises a question of contractual interpretation. Its significance lies in the fact that the contractual condition in question forms part of the Loan Market Association standard terms and conditions for par trade transactions which are a recommended set of terms published by the LMA and commonly used in the secondary loan market. Tael had sought summary judgment in its claim against the defendant under a standard form contract relating to Premium Payments order, The Court of Appeal refused such judgment, and Teal now appealed.
Held: The appeal was rejected. The word ‘accrue’ describes the coming into being of a right or an obligation. The amount may not fall due until a future date, but an entitlement may nevertheless have accrued. Interest or fees might accrue, in that sense, by reference to the lapse of time, but this was not such a situation. An entitlement to a payment premium under the loan agreement accrues on a defined event. The payment premium is expressed as an amount equal to the difference between the total of several other amounts, on the one hand, and an amount equal to interest calculated at a given rate, on the other hand, so it might be said that part of the premium relates to the period before the settlement date. That does not however mean that the premium can be regarded, retrospectively, as having notionally accrued over that period. The method of calculation of the premium should not be confused with the accrual of the right to it.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 12, [2015] WLR(D) 122, [2015] BUS LR 278, UKSC 2013/0127
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Tael One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley and Co International Plc CA 1-May-2013
Morgan Stanley appealed against summary judgment given against it in respect of the application of the terms of a standard form assignment of a Loan agreement.
Held: The words ‘which are expressed to accrue by reference to the lapse of time’, . .
At first instance – Tael One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley and Co International Plc ComC 9-Jul-2012
Each party sought summary judgment.
Held: Popplewell J granted Tael’s application and dismissed Morgan Stanley’s. The payment premium was similar to interest and performed an analogous function. The cost of the borrowing was more than the . .
Cited – In re Howell KBD 1895
The court considered whether, a tenant having become bankrupt during the currency of a quarter, that part of the quarter’s rent apportionable to the part of the quarter before the order of adjudication should be held to be rent ‘accrued due’, within . .
Cited – Aitken v South Hams District Council HL 8-Jul-1994
A notice was served in 1983 under section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requiring the abatement of a noise nuisance. That section was repealed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, with effect from 1st January 1991, and a new procedure . .
Cited – In re Lysaght CA 1898
The testator bequeathed certain shares and declared that they ‘shall carry the interest accruing thereon at my death.’
Held: But for this clause the Apportionment Act would have allowed the residuary legatees to take the benefit of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Financial Services

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544223

David M’Gill v Johne Laurestoun: SCS 4 Jul 1558

Gif ony man be maid assignay to ony actioun, assedatioun, or reversioun, and he agains quhome the samin is maid, befoir ony intimatioun thairof lauchfullie maid unto him, compone, transact, or agrie with the maker thairof, touching the contentis of the samin, and obtene his discharge, richt, or titil thairanent, he may not be callit or perseuit be the said assignay, be vertue of his assignation; but jure praeventionis is stoppit and secludit thairfra.

[1558] Mor 843
Bailii

Scotland, Contract

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543993

The Lady Fleming v Lord Fleming: SCS 5 Apr 1555

Gif an decrete-arbitral is difficile and obscure, in sic sort that it may not be cleirlie understuid, the samin sould be interprit by the jugeis arbiteris, gevaris thairof: And thairfoir, gif execution thairof be fought be ony partie before ane juge, he sould remit the interpretatioun thairof to the jugeis arbiteris, gevaris of the samin.

[1555] Mor 624
Bailii

Scotland, Contract

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543991

David Thomsonr v William Chirnside: SCS 1 Mar 1558

All assignatiouns and resignatiouns maid be ony man to his sone, or to ony uther persoun, of landis, gudis, cornis, cattell, or utheris, are of nane avail be way of exceptioun, gif the maker thairof remane still in possessioun of the samin guidis or landis, or of the maist part thairof, likeas he did before the making of the samin quia donans et retinens nihil agit.

[1558] Mor 827
Bailii

Scotland, Contract

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543992

Sir James Gray, Baronet v James Duke of Hamilton, Charles Earl of Selkirk, and Captain Alexander Gavin: HL 10 Mar 1709

An assignment of a bond, (both being executed in England and in the English form) intimated by letter only, is preferable to a posterior arrestment.
The judgment, finding that the law of Scotland should regulate this case, is reversed.
The Court having refused to allow holograph letters to be equivalent to an intimation – judgment also reversed.

[1709] UKHL Robertson – 1, (1709) Robertson 1
Bailii
Scotland

Contract

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.553449

D and K Drost Consult Gmbh and Another v Foremost Leisure (Holdings) Ltd: CA 12 Feb 2015

The parties had embarked on works despite having failed to take negotiations to a conclused contract. The claimant sought payment under a quantum meruit for services provided.

Longmore, Underhill, Sharp LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 73
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v Davis 1957
The builder tendered for work, apparently not on the basis that the tender might or might not be accepted but so that the owner could use the tender for what was described as ‘some extraneous or collateral purpose’, for negotiating a claim for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542509

Unicaja Banco SA v Rueda: ECJ 21 Jan 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers – Mortgage contracts – Default interest clauses – Unfair terms – Mortgage enforcement proceedings – Moderation of the amount of interest – Powers of the national court

A. Tizzano, P
C-482/13, [2015] EUECJ C-482/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:21
Bailii
Directive 93/13/EEC

European, Contract

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541703

Navig8 Inc v South Vigour Shipping Inc and Others: ComC 16 Jan 2015

Navig8 Inc., the charterers of four Aframax vessels, claim damages from the First to Fourth Defendants, the registered owners of those vessels, on the grounds that they breached the charterparties by withdrawing the vessels from service. The charterers say that the charterparties were fixed by an agent, the Fifth Defendant, on behalf of the registered owners. In response the registered owners deny that they were party to the charterparties and, if they were party to them, that the Fifth Defendant had authority to act on their behalf.

Teare J
[2015] EWHC 32 (Comm)
Bailii

Contract, Transport

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541504

Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd (Randall, third party): CA 1961

The court considered the effect of illegality on a contract. Devlin LJ said: ‘The effect of illegality on a contract may be threefold. If at the time of making the contract there is an intent to perform it in an unlawful way, the contract, although it remains alive, is enforceable at the suit of the party having that intent; if the intent is held in common, it is not enforceable at all. Another effect of illegality is to prevent a plaintiff from recovering under a contract if in order to prove his rights under it he has to rely on his own illegal act; he may not do that even though he can show that at the time of making the contract he had no intent to break the law and that at the time of performance he did not know that what he was doing was illegal. The third effect of illegality is to avoid the contract ab initio, and that arises if the making of the contract is expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute or is otherwise contrary to public policy.’

Devlin LJ
[1961] 1 All ER 417, [1961] 1 QB 374
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Royal Boskalis Westminster NV and others v Mountain and others CA 28-Feb-1997
Effect of illegality on a contract.
Held: Reversed . .
Cited – Soleimany v Soleimany CA 4-Mar-1998
The parties were Iranian Jews, father and son. The son arranged to export carpets from Iran in contravention of Iranian law. The father and son fell into dispute about their contracts and arranged for the issues to be resolved by the Beth Din . .
Cited – Soutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
Held: Setting out and applying the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.219307

Dibbins v Dibbins: 1896

A partnership deed provided an option for a surviving partner to purchase a deceased’s partner’s share upon giving notice within three months of the death. The partner who survived was not of sound mind, but his solicitor gave timely notice, later confirmed by an order under the Lunacy Acts. A second notice was then given, but out of time.
Held: The option had not been exercsied within the necessary time limit, and no contract had been created of which the second notice could take the benefit.
Chitty J said: ‘The doctrine of equity, that time is not of the essence of the contract, is not one of universal application, and it is settled with reference to options of this kind that there is no difference as to time between the rule of equity and the rule of common law; in other words, in exercising an option of this nature where time is limited the option must be exercised (if at all) within the time for which it is expressed to be given, both at law and in equity.’
To be valid, the exercise of an option to acquire an interest in property must be performed strictly in accordance with its prescribed terms. A failure could not be rectified by the executor out of time since ratification of an act does not apply retrospectively.

Chitty J
[1896] 2 Ch 348, [1896] 65 LJ Ch 724, 75 LT 137, 44 WR 595, 40 Sol Jo 599
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Bolton Partners v Lambert 1889
The equitabe remedy of ratification cannot be relied upon so as to render an innocent recipient a wrongdoer. Cotton LJ said ‘an act lawful at the time of its performance [cannot] be rendered unlawful, by the application of the doctrine of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Haugland Tankers As v RMK Marine Gemi Yapim Sanayii Ve Deniz Tasimaciligi Isletmesi As ComC 9-Mar-2005
An option agreement was granted for the sale of a ship hull. The option was excercised but the defendant claimed the commitment fee required was not paid.
Held: The exercise of an option had to be in the precise terms set out in the contract. . .
Cited – Di Luca v Juraise (Springs) Limited; Amess and Amess CA 6-Oct-1997
In regard to options for the purchase of land, time constraints are of the essence. An option is not a contract but an irrevocable offer that matures into a bilateral contract upon due exercise of the option during the option term . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Equity

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.223446

Dobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc: CA 1989

The plaintiff sought to claim under his household insurance. He sold some jewelry, accepting a building society cheque which turned out later to be stolen. He argued that his loss was ‘loss or damage caused by theft’ The insurer argued that there was no theft.
Held: The buyer had usurped the plaintiff’s rights in the property. There had been an appropriation of the property and a theft. That consent had been given, when the consent had been obtained by deception, would make no difference, nor that only a voidable title had been given. R v Morris did not overrule Lawrence, that appropriation can occur even if the owner consents. ‘The difficulties caused by the apparent conflict between the decisions in Reg. v. Lawrence [1972] A.C. 626 and Reg. v. Morris (David) [1984] A.C. 320 have provided, not surprisingly, a basis for much discussion by textbook writers and contributors of articles to law journals. It is, however, clear that their Lordships in Reg. v. Morris did not regard anything said in that case as conflicting with Reg. v. Lawrence for it was specifically referred to in Lord Roskill’s speech, with which the other members of the [Appellate] Committee all agreed, without disapproval or qualification. The only comment made was that, in Reg. v. Lawrence, the House did not have to consider the precise meaning of `appropriation’ in section 3(1) of the Act of 1968. With respect, I find this comment hard to follow in the light of the first of the questions asked in Reg. v. Lawrence and the answer to it, the passages from Viscount Dilhorne’s speech already cited, the fact that it was specifically argued `appropriates is meant in a pejorative, rather than a neutral, sense in that the appropriation is against the will of the owner,’ and finally that dishonesty was common ground. I would have supposed that the question in Reg. v. Lawrence was whether appropriation necessarily involved an absence of consent.’

Parker and Bingham LJJ
[1989] 3 All ER 927, [1989] 3 WLR 1066, [1990] 1 QB 274
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Gomez HL 3-Dec-1992
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.214199

Herculito Maritime Ltd and Others v Gunvor International Bv and Others ‘Polar’: CA 1 Dec 2021

Claim by the owner of the mv POLAR to recover cargo’s proportion of general average expenditure, the expenditure in question consisting of a ransom payment to pirates who had detained the vessel in the Gulf of Aden. The claim is defended by the cargo owners on the ground that the shipowner’s only remedy in the event of having to pay a ransom to pirates was to recover under the terms of insurance policies, the premium for which had been paid by the voyage charterer. Whether that is a good defence depends on the construction of the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading, which incorporated the terms of the charterparty.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson,
Lord Justice Males,
And,
Sir Patrick Elias,
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[2021] EWCA Civ 1828
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.670254

Coggs v Bernard ER 837: 1795

Casks of Brandy

[1795] EngR 837, (1795) 2 Salk 735, (1795) 91 ER 613
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Coggs v Bernard 1703
The defendant had care of the plaintiff’s cask of brandy. He broke the cask and spilt the brandy.
Held: A bailment can exist notwithstanding that it is gratuitous, i.e. without consideration passing from the bailor to the bailee. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.353182

Reinhard v Ondra Llp and Others: ChD 14 Jan 2015

The parties disputed whether the claimant had become a member of the defendant limited liability partnership.
Warren J said: ‘the ‘share’ of a member [of an LLP] is the totality of the contractual or statutory rights and obligations of that member which attach to his membership’.

Warren J
[2015] EWHC 26 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hosking v Marathon Asset Management Llp ChD 5-Oct-2016
Loss of agent’s share for breach within LLP
The court was asked whether the principle that a fiduciary (in particular, an agent) who acts in breach of his fiduciary duties can lose his right to remuneration, is capable of applying to profit share of a partner in a partnership or a member of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contract

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.541399