header-logo header-logo

17 September 2009 / Simon Love
Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Liability matters

Levicom underlines the pivotal role
of causation in professional negligence cases, says Simon Love

The recent case of Levicom International Holdings BV and another v Linklaters, [2009] EWHC 812 (Comm), [2009] All ER (D) 158 (Apr) highlights the importance of causation in successful professional negligence cases.

The Levicom Group had telecom businesses throughout the Baltic states. The claimant Levicom companies entered into shareholder agreements with Swedish companies (S), which governed S’s equity investments in two Estonian subsidiaries of Levicom.

The shareholder agreements regulated the relationship between the shareholders in the two companies.

One of the agreements (the CSA) contained a covenant by S not to carry on any cellular network business in any of the Baltic states which was the same as, or which competed with, any business carried out by Levicom. S subsequently acquired a Latvian mobile phone operator called Baltcom which Levicom considered placed them in breach of the covenant in the CSA.

Levicom instructed Linklaters to advise on its dispute with S. In due course, Levicom brought arbitration proceedings which were ultimately settled

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