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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,979

Top 5 construction cases 2012
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
  • Australia
  • December 20 2012

There were many noteworthy cases handed down in 2012, however we focused on those which have the most interest and practical relevance to our clients


JCT contract: the effect of a settlement agreement on the final account provisions
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 27 2010

The two main issues before the court were whether the settlement agreement which the parties entered into post practical completion in relation to the final account was intended to replace the contractual final account procedure in clause 30 of the JCT standard form of contract and if so, whether the settlement agreement between the parties amounted to a full and final settlement of all claims and cross-claims arising between the parties


Construction of contracts: priority of documents
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 22 2010

In the following case, the court had to consider the construction of a contract, and in particular the effect of a clause concerning the priority of documents, in order to determine which of two conflicting provisions relating to the payment mechanism was to prevail


Mergers and acquisitions: the “failing firm” defence - recent merger decisions by the European Commission and UK competition authorities indicate a more sympathetic approach to acquisitions of companies in financial difficulty
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • January 20 2014

The "failing firm" defence applies in the context of competition authorities scrutinizing mergers and acquisitions - that is, merger control - where


The definition of “subsidiary” in the Companies Act 1985 - Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply AS
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 22 2010

The Court of Appeal (CA) has handed down what many consider to be a surprise decision which reversed a High Court judgment on the meaning of "subsidiary" under sections 736 and 736A of the Companies Act 1985 (now reproduced in section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006


Frustration, breach of contract and repudiation
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • May 25 2010

In the following case, which was bought before the courts by way of a summary application for judgement, the court had to consider whether the contract between the parties was frustrated so that performance become impossible or whether in fact one or other of the parties had wrongfully repudiated the contract


Workplace pranks: when things go wrong, it’s not bad luck it’s a crime
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
  • Australia
  • December 19 2012

Two recent prosecutions of workers arising out of workplace pranks serve as a useful reminder that both workers, as well as those for whom they work, can be prosecuted for breaches of work health and safety legislation


Competition litigation should the “passing-on” defence be recognised?
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • France, United Kingdom
  • July 16 2012

France and the UK try to grapple with a key issue when cartel victims sue for damages


Honesty is the best policy: new common law duty to act honestly in contractual performance
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 17 2014

Last week, in its landmark decision in Bhasin v Hrynew, the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) faced the issue of whether Canadian common law


Extension of time provisions and ‘time at large’
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 29 2007

In the leading case of Peak Construction (Liverpool) Limited v McKinney Foundations 1970 1 BLR 111, the construction contract contained a mechanism for extending the completion date, but this mechanism failed to provide for an extension of time where the contractor was delayed in achieving the completion date due to the fault of the employer