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

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


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


Claim forms and service by email
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 5 2015

Solicitors acting for opposing parties now routinely email each other throughout the lifetime of a dispute, but there is still reluctance to accept


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


A round-up of some recent cases January 2014
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 3 2014

Where two of the defendant's witness statements were posted on the date on which they were required to be served, relief from sanctions was required


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


A round-up of some recent litigation cases October 2014
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 27 2014

The court gave the claimants relief from sanction where they were several months late serving notice of a CFA and ATE


Another fine mess Mitchell, CPR 3.10 and the service rules
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 31 2014

In Integral Petroleum SA v SCC-Finanz AG late service of particulars of claim to an email address not authorised for service was treated as valid


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


XVW & YZA v Gravesend Grammar School for Girls
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • April 25 2012

Neither a school nor a specialist expedition company were vicariously liable for the acts of a man who raped three girls on a school expedition in Belize, while they were working and staying on his farm