header-logo header-logo

29 May 2015 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Lessons to be learnt

nlj_7654_francis

How has Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd been treated at first instance, asks Andrew Francis

A key question arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] 1 AC 822, [2014] 2 All ER 622 was how trial judges would decide whether the proper remedy for breach of property rights was an injunction, or damages in lieu.

Fen Tigers stated two key principles. First, where there is a breach of property rights the prima facie position is that an injunction should be granted. Second, as to the choice between an injunction and damages, the outcome should depend on all relevant facts, circumstances and arguments. Overlying both principles is the point made by the Supreme Court in Fen Tigers that there should no longer be slavish adherence to the “good working rule” in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd [1895] 1 Ch 287, [1891-4] All ER Rep 838. While there were differences between the justices of the Supreme Court as to what might be relevant

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll