header-logo header-logo

08 July 2022
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 8 July 2022

Carriers

Knapfield v C.A.R.S Holding Ltd (Company No. 05481676) and other companies [2022] EWHC 1437 (Comm), [2022] All ER (D) 47 (Jun)

The Commercial Court ruled on the claim brought by the applicant, an owner and collector of classic cars, against the defendants, an events management company and transport companies. The applicant sought damages for the damage and diminution in value of two valuable cars while in the possession of the defendants in July 2019. He alleged that (i) the defendants were liable for damages for misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967; and (ii) that the defendants had entered into a contract with the applicant whereby it agreed to reimburse the applicant for the damage which had occurred in full, and that contract being separate to the Carriage of Goods Road Act 1965 which had incorporated the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR). The second defendant had accepted that it was legally liable for the damage sustained but the other defendants did

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll