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 287

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


Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Markandan & Uddin meaning of “completion”
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 2 2012

Where the defendant firm of solicitors had caused, through no fraud of their own, mortgage monies paid to it to be paid out to fraudsters in breach of the terms of their instructions and authority, it had acted in breach of trust


Causation and limitation
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • December 17 2010

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has successfully appealed against a decision allowing more than 1,000 ex-servicemen to proceed with claims for damages for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to fallout from British nuclear weapon tests in Australia and on islands in the Pacific Ocean during the Cold War in the 1950s


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


The merger doctrine
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 24 2011

Parties who have had a dispute heard by a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction should not be allowed to litigate the same issues in the courts


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


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


Helping the enemy are you ever required to point out a claimant’s mistake?
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • September 26 2013

There is a fine line between the duty to do the best for your client and taking an unfair advantage of the claimant. This dilemma for a defendant's


Fraudulent device
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 24 2011

The claimant made a claim in respect of its tug under a marine insurance policy


Surveyors’ liability to buy-to-let purchasers
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 25 2010

Smith v Bush established that a valuer instructed by a lender owes a duty of care to the purchaser of residential property at the lower end of the market