Contract disputes: Don’t leave it to chance or common sense

Posted by Colin Fenny Feb 15th, 2012, in Business Protection, Dispute Resolution

Last year I posted a blog that highlighted the importance of ensuring terms and conditions are properly drafted to minimise the risk of contract disputes arising over the interpretation of such clauses at a later date.

This is a scenario all businesses could well do without in the current economic climate, particularly as the Supreme Court recently provided some clarification on how it would interpret such clauses.

The case of ‘Rainy Sky S.A. & Ors v Kookmin Bank’ confirms that where language used in a contract has more than one potential meaning, the courts are to adopt what it considers to be the construction most consistent with business common sense.

The case involved a dispute over whether a clause in a contract to finance the purchase of a ship, which required the defendant bank to repay pre-delivery instalments to the claimant purchaser, applied in the event of the insolvency of the shipbuilder. (more…)

Security firm scores a victory against ‘compensation culture’ with Harrison Drury

Posted by Amanda Webster Dec 20th, 2011, in Dispute Resolution

Harrison Drury has helped a security firm challenge the compensation culture with a successful defence against a personal injury claim.

In the case we represented an established and reputable company which provides professional door staff to entertainment venues in the North West.

Our client was sued for compensation by the claimant, a solicitor in a personal injury firm no less, who alleged she had been knocked down and injured by one of our client’s door staff at a city centre bar in Liverpool while she was on an evening out.

The door staff and the manager of the bar who were working on the night in question had no knowledge of the incident. We investigated the claim thoroughly and were looking to find a credible alternative explanation to put to the judge at trial that showed that if the incident had occurred, it did not involve our client. (more…)

Persistence pays off in commercial disputes

Posted by Colin Fenny Nov 17th, 2011, in Dispute Resolution

A recent commercial dispute I was involved with demonstrates the value of being prepared to pursue a claim and not to be put off by repeated denials and delaying tactics from the other side, especially when it comes to dealing with insurers

The case involved water damage to a commercial property in Lancashire, which was caused by preparatory work on a neighbouring building site.

Our client purchased a former railway tunnel which he was intended to use for storage, which began taking water when a housing developer removed the topsoil from nearby land to begin work on new housing.

The leaking water caused a major nuisance to my client’s business and caused significant damage to the property. We therefore submitted a claim to the developer for £75,000 to compensate the client for both the damage caused and the cost of remedial works to fix the problem. (more…)

Harrison Drury secures adjudication result in building dispute

Posted by Communications Director Jul 19th, 2011, in Case studies, Dispute Resolution, Property

A property developer has been ordered to pay almost £40,000 in additional fees to an architecture practice after a successful adjudication result secured by Harrison Drury Solicitors.

The dispute arose following the delayed completion of a new housing development which, according to the claimant Core Design, resulted in significant additional work outside what it was contracted to provide under its fixed-price building contract.

The scheme of four blocks of flats on the site in Chesterfield had been due to complete in February 2008, but work was not finished until March 2009, prompting the adjudication proceedings.

Acting for Core Design, Harrison Drury successfully argued that the additional works caused by the delay amounted to a “changes in the programme of works” under the building contract and that its client was therefore entitled to payment for those additional works. (more…)

What is an injunction and who can use them?

Posted by John Chesworth Apr 27th, 2011, in Dispute Resolution

We’ve seen and heard much in recent days about the rising use of injunctions to ‘gag’ the press, but what exactly are they?

Put simply, an injunction is a court order requiring the person, or people, on the receiving end to refrain from doing certain unlawful acts.

An injunction is usually granted after the unlawful act has been committed.  However, where it can be demonstrated an unlawful act is about to be committed, a court can grant an injunction to prevent it from being committed in the first place.

Injunctions are in the news because they are increasingly being used to prevent the publication of news stories relating to the private lives of public figures. However, they have also been used to ‘gag’ the press from reporting adverse stories regarding companies, most notably Trafigura which in 2009 sought to prevent the Guardian publishing details of a report that it had commissioned into a toxic-dumping incident in Ivory Coast.

The first thing a claimant seeking an injunction must persuade the court is that an unlawful act is about to be committed. Looking at celebrities and their private lives, injunctions are sometimes granted if the claimant can argue a story about to be printed is untrue and will cause damage to their reputation, because publication could amount to defamation. (more…)

Why shareholder agreements are vital in family businesses

Posted by David Filmer Mar 22nd, 2011, in Business Protection, Dispute Resolution

In any business, when shareholder disputes arise, it‘s always a difficult time. However, when the owners of a business are also members of the same family, then things can turn especially nasty.

The benefits of relying on family members in business affairs are evident in the hallmarks of greater trust and stronger commitment to the success of the business. However, when problems at home spill over into the office, there is rarely a happy outcome.

The Patak’s family business dispute

This was highlighted in a high-profile case surrounding the family-owned Indian food business Patak’s. This business was developed from a small family enterprise making curry sauces, into a multi-million pound business, but things turned sour when the patriarch of the company died, and the shares in the business were being distributed between the siblings. In the end, a protracted case in the High Court led to two of the siblings being awarded multi-million pound settlements in 2006, but at the expense of family unity. (more…)

Minimising legal costs: Why prevention is better than the cure

Posted by Amanda Webster Mar 15th, 2011, in Dispute Resolution

In my role as a Deputy District Judge in the County Courts, one of my functions is to assess the legal costs claimed by the winning party against the losing party in civil disputes.

Having been a litigation lawyer for over 23 years and involved in a number of high profile cases, I thought I had seen it all when it came to legal fees.

I have to say, however, it always comes as a surprise to see the huge bills of costs run up on some cases where the amounts in dispute are relatively small, or where the issues aren’t of particular importance to the parties to the claim. It is not uncommon to see cases where the costs claimed are wholly disproportionate to the amount in dispute, sometimes two, three or even four times the damages awarded.

In a recent case in Leeds County Court I spent two full days assessing the costs in a claim concerning the boundary between two properties. The damages awarded by the trial Judge were £2,500. The reason the assessment took so long in this extreme example was that the costs claimed were so high, in excess of £50,000.  On anybody’s reckoning that cannot be said to be value for money. (more…)

Do your contracts need a review following Court of Appeal case?

Posted by Colin Fenny Feb 10th, 2011, in Dispute Resolution, Property

If you’re a building contractor, you’ll be interested to hear about a recent case in the Court of Appeal which has provided useful guidance on the extent of your liability for defective works.

Even if you’re not in the building trade, the case is equally applicable to manufacturers wanting to protect themselves against future claims for defective products.

In this case (Robinson –v– P E Jones (Contractors) Limited) a homeowner brought a claim against the contractor that had originally built the property, claiming the costs of remedying defective works carried out in 1992, but not discovered until 2004.

The homeowner could not pursue a claim under the original building contract because more than six years had passed since the works were completed. The homeowner therefore sought to pursue a claim under the common law of negligence. (more…)

Will Naomi Campbell case change way civil justice is funded?

Posted by John Chesworth Jan 21st, 2011, in Dispute Resolution, HD comment

It seems court cases involving Naomi Campbell are hitting the headlines a lot these days.

But the legal community has paid closer scrutiny this week to a case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) involving the supermodel which threatens to change radically the way litigation is funded in the UK.

Lawyers representing Mirror Group Newspapers successfully overturned an earlier ruling which had required MGN to pick up the lawyers’ success fee element in Ms Campbell’s £1million ‘no win, no fee’ legal bill.

In the earlier case, The Daily Mirror was ordered to pay £3,500 compensation to Miss Campbell for publishing “offensive and distressing” pictures of her back in 2001. But it also had to pay her costs, which included ‘success fees’ of more than £365,000 agreed by the model with her lawyers.

Success fees became recoverable following the introduction of conditional fee arrangements, commonly known as ‘no win, no fee’ agreements. The rules provide that a successful claimant (more…)

£80,000 claim dismissed after Harrison Drury legal challenge

Posted by Communications Director Jan 20th, 2011, in Case studies, Dispute Resolution

A chartered surveyor who was sued for £80,000 after a property dispute has had the claim against him withdrawn after Harrison Drury successfully challenged it on his behalf.

The claim was made against the Midlands-based surveyor alleging he was negligent when he prepared a deed plan for use in the sale of a house in 1998.

The dispute was complicated as it was alleged the ‘defective’ deed plan had given rise to a boundary dispute with a neighbour. (more…)