Knowledge

Our knowledge resources reflect the breadth and depth of our expertise, our insight into the issues which matter to your business, and our understanding of the markets in which you operate.

Knowledge

<p>Filter Knowledge</p>

301 Results

Interpreting W&I Policies – to exclude or not to exclude, that is the question…

In Project Angel BidCo Ltd (in administration) v Axis Managing Agency Limited the Commercial Court made clear that to the extent any warranties included in an SPA are identified in an appendix to a W&I policy as being covered (in principle) by the W&I insurer, this remains subject to the wider terms and conditions of the W&I policy including any relevant exclusion clauses.

Dishonestly assisting directors: Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited v Ruhan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1120

Last month the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited v Ruhan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1120. This case deals with several, complex legal issues concerning the availability of equitable compensation against an individual who has provided dishonest assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty in circumstances where the breaches of fiduciary duty in question are properly to be categorised as a "single and uninterrupted course of conduct". 

Hope Capital Limited v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP – a breach of duty with no actionable loss

A recent decision by Constable J of the High Court in a negligence claim has examined the scope of a valuer's duty of care. Applying the scope of duty test handed down by the Supreme Court in MBS v Grant Thornton UK LLP, Constable J has ruled that the purpose of the Defendant's valuation in this case, although critically important, was not to provide the only "green light" needed for a loan transaction to proceed.

"EU Law is no longer supreme": CAT rules in Umbrella Interchange case that it is not bound by post-Brexit CJEU decision on limitation periods in competition follow-on damages claims

In its judgment of 26 July 2023[1], the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") considered the applicability of the European Court of Justice's ("CJEU") decision on limitation in Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v RM[2] ("The Volvo Decision") to the claims brought in both the Umbrella Interchange Fee Litigation and the Merricks Collective Proceedings. 

Back To Top