Sarah joined the Commercial Disputes group as an Associate in March 2015. She has a broad experience of commercial and financial disputes involving litigation and mediation. She acts on a range of commercial and financial disputes across a variety of sectors.
The recent decision in Barclays Bank plc v Price extends the established test that a demand made under a guarantee for an excessive amount may nevertheless be effective as a demand for what is due in circumstances where the amount that has been demanded exceeds an express liability cap. This judgment will surely be a welcome extension of the authorities relating to the operation of guarantees (and the demands made thereunder) for the creditors that benefit from such arrangements.
A recent case considered the interaction between a warranty in a receivables financing contract which specified that one of the parties was not prohibited from disposing of the receivable and a clause expressly prohibiting assignment without the other party's consent in an underlying sale and purchase agreement. The case raises important issues relating to the effect and interpretation of non-assignment clauses and suggests that this is an area ripe for further consideration by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently held that the location of the incident from which damage arose in the context of a claim alleging the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means was where a conspiratorial agreement was agreed. In this case, that location was England and the English courts therefore had jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court recently held that the test for dishonesty should be assessed only by reference to whether the defendant's conduct is dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people. In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that there were convincing grounds for holding that the second limb of the well-known Ghosh test did not correctly represent the law and that directions based on it should no longer be given.
The High Court recently held that an oral contract for waste removal services had been entered into by a company and not by the company's owner in his personal capacity. The waste removal company, which had provided its services to a company that had gone into liquidation, was therefore unable to recover outstanding sums payable to it. This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that parties agree contractual terms in writing and document their negotiations with sufficient detail.
The Court of Appeal recently clarified the circumstances in which a party to litigation can use a subject access request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to obtain information which may be useful in litigation. This judgment provides clarification on issues relating to the legal professional privilege exception, the concept of disproportionate effort and the relevance of the data subject's motive in making the request.
The High Court recently dismissed the Libyan Investment Authority's claim against Goldman Sachs International based on two causes of action: undue influence and unconscionable bargains. The case is interesting because it applies the concepts of actual and presumed undue influence in a commercial and business context, illustrating ways in which the relationship boundary between bank and client may cross from a normal counterparty relationship to a protected relationship.
The Court of Appeal was recently asked to consider the correct contractual interpretation of a long-term supply agreement. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal indicated obiter that including an 'in writing only' variation clause in a contract does not prevent subsequent variation of the contract orally or by conduct in certain circumstances.
The Commercial Court recently determined that a claim in restitution based on unjust enrichment was governed by English law pursuant to the EU Rome II Regulation, rather than the law of Geneva. The case clarifies certain aspects regarding the interpretation of Rome II, while also demonstrating how the applicable law may depend on the precise formulation of the claim.
The High Court recently held that the doctrine of repudiatory breach is excluded in multi-party limited liability partnership (LLP) agreements that fall under Section 5 of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. The decision clarifies a previously uncertain area of law; however, the court did not confirm whether the doctrine would be similarly excluded in the case of a two-member LLP.
The Court of Appeal recently held that an individual investor was too late to bring a claim in negligence against her financial adviser and could not take advantage of Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the limitation period, as she had constructive knowledge of relevant facts ascertainable during the primary limitation period.