header-logo header-logo

16 September 2016
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Deceit

OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG [2016] EWCA Civ 778, [2016] All ER (D) 88 (Aug)

 

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant company’s appeal against the measure of damages awarded against it for its deceit in the supply of crude oil to the claimant company. In the circumstances, the judge had not made any error of law and had reached a decision which had been open to him.

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

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll