We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 284

Email acceptance of offer

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 26 2010

There is no authority to say whether an email acceptance is effective when it arrives or at the time when the offeror could reasonably have been expected to read it

With or without prejudice?

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 28 2014

What lawyers write - or don't write - at the top of letters and emails can adversely affect their clients or employers. The temptation to put

Liability of parent company to subsidiary’s employees

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 26 2012

A parent company can owe a direct duty of care to its subsidiary’s employees in appropriate circumstances, which is independent of any questions of vicarious liability or piercing the corporate veil

Jurisdiction clauses

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 30 2010

This case concerns a series of complex agreements relating to equities and foreign exchange trading concluded between the claimant, an investment bank domiciled in Germany, and the defendant company incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands

Pre-action Part 36 offers

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 23 2011

Where a Part 36 offer is made by the defendant and accepted by the claimant before proceedings are commenced, the claimant is unable to claim costs on the standard basis in accordance with CPR 36.10 because there are no proceedings

Time bars and estoppel

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 28 2011

Although there is no general duty owed by one party to litigation to correct the mistakes of the other, there are circumstances in which deliberately allowing the other party to continue in a mistaken belief will be unconscionable

Disclosure of insurance and funding details

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 3 2012

A party to litigation is only required to reveal its insurance position and the means by which it is funding its claim or defence in certain circumstances

Surveyors’ liability

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 24 2011

The first claimant (Capita) was trustee of an investment vehicle created in connection with the development of a factory outlet shopping centre (FOC) at Chatham Historic Dockyard in the former North West Kent Enterprise Zone (Dockside

When should a defendant make a Calderbank offer?

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 31 2012

Recent developments have reduced the costs protection afforded by Calderbank offers and asserted the importance of making fully compliant Part 36 offers

Disclosure of skeleton arguments

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 27 2011

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ skeleton arguments should be disclosed on request, except in exceptional circumstances