header-logo header-logo

25 May 2018 / Ben Amunwa
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Caught in the middle

nlj_7794_amunwa

Game playing should be avoided if civil litigators learn of opponents’ mistakes while trying to serve clients’ interests. Benjamin Amunwa reports.

  • The High Court has held that parties to a litigation may be under a duty to correct their opponent’s mistakes or misunderstandings if doing so furthers the overriding objective.

Woodward and Addison v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) was a contractual claim worth over £5m, brought by the assignees of two insolvent companies.

The contract was made on 20 June 2011 for the purchase of a drug. The claimants alleged that Phoenix had sold them the product as a generic drug, in breach of an existing patent to Pfizer.

As the alleged breach and/or misrepresentation had occurred at the time the contract was entered into, the claim was due to be time barred on 20 June 2017. The claimants issued the claim form on the eve of limitation (19 June 2017) and the usual rule (CPR 7.5(1)) required them to serve the claim form on the defendant within four months

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll