scholarly journals RATIONALISING ANTICIPATORY BREACH IN EXECUTED CONTRACTS

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Yihan Goh ◽  
Man Yip
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Anticipatory Breach ◽  
English Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

RATIONALISING the doctrine of anticipatory breach is notoriously difficult. This may explain the complete lack of attempt by the UK Supreme Court to address its conceptual difficulties in its recent judgment in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43; [2015] 3 All E.R. 1082. It is therefore of interest that the Singapore Court of Appeal in The “STX Mumbai” [2015] SGCA 35; [2015] 5 S.L.R. 1 explained why the doctrine of anticipatory breach can be applied to executed contracts (in the sense of being fully executed by the innocent party). Whilst anticipatory breach applies similarly under English law, the English courts have never considered the underlying justification, save to say in a case with a partially executed contract that “it would be very strange and hardly unworkable” if the innocent party had to wait until the time for performance (Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd. [1973] A.C. 331, 356, per Lord Simon).

Morrisons off the hook as employers welcome clarity on vicarious liability for data breach

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 504-506
Author(s):  
Emma Flett ◽  
Jenny Wilson ◽  
Rebecca Gover
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Data Controller ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract The UK Supreme Court has granted the appeal of supermarket chain WW Morrison Supermarkets plc (Morrisons), finding that the Court of Appeal had misunderstood a number of the governing principles of vicarious liability. Considering Morrisons’ liability afresh, the Supreme Court clarified that the motive and authorized acts of the wrongdoing employee are highly material to a finding of vicarious liability, whilst a causal chain of events is not. Whilst Morrisons’ victory is a welcome clarification on the law of vicarious liability, data controllers should take note: had Morrisons not been a sophisticated data controller paying particular attention to its obligations under data protection legislation, the outcome would likely have been more of a cautionary tale.

scholarly journals Breakthrough in Parent Company Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-748
Author(s):  
Cees van Dam
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Parent Companies ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Two English and two Dutch cases have recently clarified the (potential) liability of parent companies vis-à-vis third parties in relation to damage caused by their subsidiaries. They concern the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell, the Hague Court of Appeal in Oguru v Shell and the Hague District Court in Milieudefensie v Shell (climate change case).

scholarly journals REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ACTION ABROAD: THE UK SUPREME COURT IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-66
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
European Convention ◽  
English Court ◽  
English Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Tort Claims

AbstractIn January 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down landmark judgments in three cases arising out of the UK government's conduct abroad. In Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence, the Court considered whether detention in non-international armed conflicts was compatible with the right of liberty in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second case, Belhaj v Straw, involved an examination of the nature and scope of the foreign act of State doctrine, and its applicability as a defence to tort claims arising out of the alleged complicity of the UK Government in human rights abuses abroad. Finally, Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence saw the Court examining the nature and scope of the Crown act of State doctrine, and its use as a defence to tort claims alleging unlawful detention and maltreatment. All three cases raise important doctrinal issues and have significant consequences for government accountability and access to a judicial remedy. At the heart of each decision is the relationship between international law and English law, including the ways in which international norms influence the development of English law and public policy, and how different interpretations of domestic law affect how judges resolve questions of international law. These cases also see the judges grapple with the role of the English court in the UK constitutional and international legal orders.

scholarly journals Collective Proceedings for Damages in UK Competition Law Case Comment to the Judgment Merricks v Mastercard [2019] EWCA Civ 674

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 245-257
Author(s):  
Kathryn McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Legal Test ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Merricks v Mastercard [2019] is the first action under the newly developed ‘opt-out’ collective proceedings regime for aggregate damages under UK competition law to be considered by the UK Court of Appeal. It is significant for both the level of damages (£14 billion (€16 billion)) and the clarification of the legal test at the certification stage for the suitability for an aggregate award: the method for calculation of the aggregate damages and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court’s lowering of these thresholds importantly opens the door to future class actions and reasserts the importance of collective proceedings as a valuable means of redress for competition law infringements. The decision has now been appealed to the UK Supreme Court where these issues may be further clarified and resolved.

Shanks v Unilever: the sweet smell of success

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-78
Author(s):  
Hugh Dunlop ◽  
Janet Strath (Paralegal)
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Employee Compensation ◽  
Sweet Smell ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract Shanks v Unilever Plc & Ors [2019] UKSC 45 (23 October 2019) The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from a Court of Appeal ruling and found that Professor Ian Shanks was entitled to £2 million in employee compensation under sections 40(1) and 41 of the Patents Act 1977.

Odpowiedzialność karna za przestępne współdziałanie w prawie angielskim po wyroku R v. Jogee; Ruddock v. The Queen

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 98-121
Author(s):  
Piotr Brzostek
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
English Law ◽  
Joint Enterprise ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Secondary Liability

The combined decisions of the UK Supreme Court and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in R v. Jogee; Ruddock v. The Queen caused upheaval in the English law on criminal complicity. The Supreme Court/Privy Council decided that the law on criminal complicity „took a wrong turn” 33 years ago in the Privy Council ruling in Chan Wing-Siu which concerned a controversial doctrine of parasitic joint enterprise liability. According to the said doctrine, if A and B set out to commit a crime X (e.g. robbery) and B foresees that A might commit crime Y (e.g. murder) in the course of committing crime X, B will be liable for crime Y, even if he does not intend that crime Y be committed. The mere fact of foresight on B’s part is enough for him to be criminally liable. Decision in Jogee; Ruddock is of seminal importance as it overturned the doctrine of parasitic joint enterprise liability. It is doubtful, however, to what extent the Supreme Court has resolved the problems that have bedeviled this area of law. This article presents in outline the English law on criminal complicity and attempts to assess the changes that were introduced in Jogee; Ruddock. A number of issues still call for further refinement and resolution. It appears, however, that the emphasis the Supreme Court put on intention as a required standard of fault, draws, at least superficially, the continental (Polish and German) and English criminal law closer together in terms of mens rea requirements for secondary liability.

scholarly journals Form and substance in contract damages

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-239
Author(s):  
David McLauchlan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Business Travel ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
American Law ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article discusses the role of form and substance in the modern law of contract both generally and with specific reference to the law of damages for breach of contract and, in particular, the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP [2017] UKSC 32 and Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (The New Flamenco) [2017] UKSC 43. Although it was probably true to say when Atiyah and Summers wrote in Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law over 30 years ago that ‘the English law of contractual damages continues to be treated by judges and writers as governed by highly formal rules’, it would be wrong to describe the reasoning employed by judges in modern times when explaining, refining and applying these rules as highly formal. Particularly in appellate decisions, judicial reasoning is usually an amalgam of what the authors would describe as formal and substantive considerations. Indeed, the formal reason for supporting a decision may be preferred precisely because it provides the just or most convenient solution to the dispute, as in Swynson v Lowick Rose. In that case the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal that denial of the damages claimed ‘would be a triumph of form over substance’, preferring the view of the dissenting judge who said that ‘the form here is the substance’. And, while the decision in The New Flamenco appears at first sight to rest on formal, arguably formalistic, reasoning, a closer reading reveals that substantive considerations influenced the outcome of the appeal.

REFLECTIVE LOSS IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Stephen Laing
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document