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 281

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

Renwick v Simon and Michael Brooke Architects latent damage in construction claims

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 22 2011

The claimant homeowners must have had the knowledge required under s14A of the Limitation Act 1980 for bringing an action against the second defendant, William Attwell and Associates (Attwell), more than three years before they began proceedings against the firm

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

Litigation privilege not so easy to come by

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 3 2014

In recent years the courts have been slow to allow a party to litigation to refuse to disclose a relevant contemporaneous report on the ground that it

Costs consequences of pre-action Part 36 offers Solomon v Cromwell Group plc CPR 36.10 and CPR 45

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 30 2012

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that where a defendant’s Part 36 offer is made and accepted before proceedings are begun, the claimant is entitled to claim costs under CPR 36.10

Fraudulent claims in all their guises

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 20 2014

You couldn't come up with a more confusing legal tangle if you tried than that concerning claims tainted by fraud. The main source of confusion is

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

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

Claim on behalf of estate

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 29 2011

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision not to allow a claim on behalf of an intestate's estate to proceed

Liability for pure economic loss and complex structure theory

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 17 2010

The scope of any duty of care does not cover damage caused "to the thing itself"