Compact Contract

A brief look at topical issues in contract

15 November 2018 Georgina Thomson

In Vannin Capital v RBOS Shareholders Action Group the court held, by way of summary judgment, that Vannin’s termination notice extended to both the litigation funding agreements in place with the shareholders and not just one as Vannin contended. Litigation funder Vannin Capital  had entered two funding agreements with the RBOS shareholders: one for GBP 1.5m and › Read More

07 November 2018 Natasha Rao

In SDI Retail v Rangers Football Club, the High Court held that Rangers FC should not have entered into a merchandising agreement with a third party without giving Sports Direct, the existing licensee, an opportunity to match the third party’s offer (under the terms of the licence). The main question was whether a requirement that › Read More

29 October 2018 Becky Valori

In Airbus v Generali Italia, the High Court held that Alitalia’s insurers were bound by an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts in an agreement between Alitalia and Airbus. The proceedings arose out of an incident in 2013 where an aircraft leased by Alitalia was required to make an emergency landing due › Read More

16 October 2018 Leah Fisher

In Arcadis v AMEC, the Court of Appeal held that a liability cap had been incorporated into a letter of instruction. AMEC, a specialist concrete contractor, employed Arcadis, an engineering outfit, to help design two construction projects: the Wellcome Building and Castlepoint car park. A detailed Protocol Agreement was exchanged but never finalised. Work was › Read More

10 October 2018 Kerry Chan

In Rusal v Crispian and Whiteleave, the High Court held that the principle of interpretation which applied to a private company’s articles of association – that the right to transfer shares could only be restricted by clear words – would not generally apply to shareholders’ agreements. The central issue was whether Crispian had validly commenced › Read More

03 October 2018 Taly Dvorkis

In Inter Export v Lasytsya, the Court of Appeal held that the correct measure of damages for fraudulently misrepresenting the ability to pay the contract price is to put the aggrieved party in the position it would have been in had the deceit not occurred. Lasytsya was the company director of Nerida which had entered › Read More

28 September 2018 Laurence Ridgway

In Classic Maritime v Limbunga, the High Court held that a contractual force majeure clause incorporated a “but for” test of causation. Limbunga, a charterer, contracted to provide iron ore for shipment by Classic Maritime, a ship owner. Limbunga failed to do so after a burst dam forced the mine that supplied the iron ore › Read More

20 September 2018 Jason Rix

In Ukraine v Law Debenture, the Court of Appeal refused to imply terms into a trust deed and an agency agreement that Ukraine’s obligation to repay some Eurobonds wouldn’t arise if Russia, the sole noteholder, hindered repayment. Law Debenture (at the direction of Russia) sought summary judgment against Ukraine for non-repayment of Eurobonds. Part of Ukraine’s › Read More

17 August 2018 Victoria Williams

In Rock v MWB, the Supreme Court declined to deal with consideration. In Simantob v Shavleyan, the High Court had to grapple with it. The parties were art dealers and had settled claims relating to a dispute over the sale of antique Islamic art. Mr Shavleyan agreed to pay Mr Simantob USD 1.5m in full › Read More

17 August 2018 Elizabeth Staves

The High Court in Standish v RBS  held that an alleged overarching agreement was unnecessary and therefore could not arise by implication. There was no breach of an implied duty of good faith and the claim was struck out as it was bound to fail. Standish were shareholders in a company which suffered financial difficulties. › Read More