Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
In Co-operative Group v Birse Developments and others, Co-op originally sought damages for the cost of repairing its concrete slab flooring laid by Birse. In October 2012, Co-op amended its claim, seeking full replacement of the flooring due to it being insufficiently reinforced.
In May 2013, Co-op sought further amendment to its claim, stating that the deficiency was in fact that the floor was too thin and that this had always been the case. The Court of Appeal held that if the flooring had always been too thin, Co-op should have known this when it made its first amendment application in October 2012. The Court viewed the delays caused by this oversight as a ‘foreseeable risk’ Co-op should have avoided; their first application having already delayed matters. Co-op’s argument in May 2013 should clearly have been pleaded far earlier and so their application was dismissed.
This case highlights the importance of correctly targeting claims at the outset and the consequences if time is allowed to slip.
The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
View blog
A recent case illustrates the importance of ensuring that all emails discussing the terms of a proposed acquisition are headed ‘subject to contract’.
In its Judgment earlier this month, the Tribunal considered whether vegetarianism is capable of being a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.
The recent case of Ugradar v Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust has highlighted that the current cap on contractual claims that can be awarded in the Employment Tribunals is outdated and capable of producing real injustice.
Partner
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up