Blog
Share plans and proprietary estoppel: be careful what you promise
Samuel Sherr
In the case of Mid-East Sales Ltd v Engineering & Trading Co. PVT Ltd (2014), the High Court found the Defendant to have effectively waived legal professional privilege by citing legal advice in its’ witness evidence in such a way so as to cross the line from ‘reference’ to ‘deployment’. This meant that, despite the fact that such communications between solicitor and client are usually protected, the Defendant was compelled by the court to disclose to the Claimant the legal advice it had received.
In the case of Global Marine Drillships Ltd v William La Bella & Ors (2014), the High Court found that it was not appropriate to strike out the claim on the grounds of non-compliance with a disclosure order, as the evidence as a whole was not sufficient to show that the disclosure had been incomplete.
In the case of Allison & Anor v Horner [2014] EWCA Civ 117, the Court of Appeal has found that the first instance judge had correctly determined the requisite date of knowledge when applying section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the Act”) in order to extend the limitation period in a claim for deceit.
In the case of Jackson v Universal Music Operations Ltd (2014), following an application for summary judgment, the High Court struck out the libel claim on the basis that it had no real prospect of success.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility