header-logo header-logo

Testing times

29 April 2016 / Helen Mulcahy
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail
nlj_7696_mulcahy

What test of damages should apply in a case involving concurrent causes of action, asks Helen Mulcahy​

Wellesley Partners (WP), a small but successful firm of head hunters in the investment banking sector, brought a successful negligence claim against Withers arising out of changes to WP’s LLP agreement, which was to allow for the admission of new investors who were to become members of the partnership (see Wellesley Partners LLP v. Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146, [2015] All ER (D) 146 (Nov)). One of the investors, Addax, was to make a capital contribution of US$5,000,000 in return for a 25% interest. An element of the initial terms was that Addax would be entitled to exercise an option to withdraw half its capital contribution, after 42 months.

However, for reasons unknown, the junior solicitor who drafted the changes to the LLP agreement inserted that the option to withdraw was exercisable within the first 41 months. Twelve months following the investment, Addax exercised the option to withdraw half its capital contribution.

At the beginning of 2008,

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll