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 21

Court of Appeal finds that default provisions in share purchase agreement are unenforceable penalties

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 13 2013

A recent Court of Appeal decision has highlighted the rule against penalties, demonstrating that a penalty can include not only a requirement to pay

High court decision on where subsidiary domiciled under Brussels regulation

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 8 2013

The place of central administration of a subsidiary will not be where the parent administers its own business unless the parent is, unusually

Court of Appeal finds company entitled to access e-mails sent or received on its behalf by former CEO

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 23 2013

The Court of Appeal has held that a company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer to provide access to the content of

UK Supreme Court confirms corporate veil can be pierced in some circumstances

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 13 2013

The Supreme Court has confirmed that a court can in very limited circumstances pierce the corporate veil. According to Lord Sumption, the principle

Supreme Court hearing on jurisdiction issues in VTB capital

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 12 2012

Starting today, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corporation and others 2012 EWCA Civ 808

Supreme court hearing in Prudential starts today

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 5 2012

The Supreme Court is set to hear Prudential’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s much-publicised decision from October 2010 which confirmed that legal professional privilege did not extend to advice on tax law given by accountants, or anyone other than members of the legal professions (ie qualified solicitors, barristers or foreign lawyers): R (on the application of Prudential PLC & Anor) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor 2010 EWCA Civ 1094 (see post

Part 36 offers in context of counterclaims and negative declarations

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 30 2012

A recent High Court judgment highlights the scope for confusion in applying Part 36 in a case where the formal roles of claimant and defendant do not reflect the reality of who is seeking a (greater) remedy in financial terms: The Procter & Gamble Company v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another 2012 EWHC 2839 (Ch

Commercial Court upholds “no set-off” clause

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 18 2012

In a recent decision, the Commercial Court granted summary judgment on a seller’s claim for approximately US$12 million as the price due under a commercial supply contract

Court of Appeal considers confidentiality obligations of in-house lawyers

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 28 2012

The Court of Appeal has considered whether and in what circumstances a former employed lawyer will be restrained from acting adverse to a former employer in order to protect that former employer’s confidential information: Generics (UK) Limited v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd 2012 EWCA Civ 726

House of Commons objects to proposed Common European Sales Law

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 3 2012

The House of Commons has objected to the proposed Regulation to introduce a Common European Sales Law on the basis that it does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity