header-logo header-logo

Tort

12 December 2014
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Jalal Bezee Mejel Al-Gaood & Partner and another company v Innospec Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 3147 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 230 (Oct)

The claimants brought an action concerning the sale of petrol-related chemicals to Iraq. They contended that, between 2003 and 2008, Innospec had conspired with others to injure them by engaging in corrupt practices, in particular the bribing of officials in the Iraqi Ministry of Oil (the MOO). They submitted that, had it not been for the bribery and corruption, the MOO would not have made a major contract with them. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the action, held that the claimants had failed to show that the decision had been procured by bribery and, on that ground, the claim failed.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll