header-logo header-logo

02 October 2014
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Consumer contract

Robertson v Swift [2014] UKSC 50, [2014] All ER (D) 45 (Sep)

The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant’s home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1816).

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

Kingsley Napley—Kelly Greig & Abbie West-Kelsey

Kingsley Napley—Kelly Greig & Abbie West-Kelsey

Firm strengthens international tax team with partner and tax manager hire

Dawson Cornwell—Russell Bywater

Dawson Cornwell—Russell Bywater

Family law firm appoints new managing partner and head of matrimonial department

Forbes Solicitors—Katy Parkinson & Paul Hatton

Forbes Solicitors—Katy Parkinson & Paul Hatton

Employment and commercial offering strengthened by double hire

NEWS
Counsel for CILEX, for law centres, for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and for the Law Society laid out their arguments last week in the high-profile Mazur case
Commercial law is changing fast, driven by new technologies and the growing complexity of global markets. The University of Manchester’s LLM in International Commercial and Technology Law brings focus to that shift, highlighting the core areas that now define effective commercial legal work. By exploring corporate governance, data rights, fintech regulation and digital era intellectual property, this course gives professionals the insight they need to make informed, confident decisions in a rapidly evolving landscape
Making refugee status temporary and subject to review every 30 months will put pressure on an ‘already overstretched’ justice system, the Law Society has warned
Statutory limitation periods do not apply to unfair prejudice petitions brought under the Companies Act, the Supreme Court has held in a 4–1 majority decision, Lord Burrows dissenting
A Mental Capacity Act ‘best interests’ analysis must be undertaken for all treatment decisions for incapacitated adults, the Court of Appeal has held
back-to-top-scroll