In the second part of this five-article series, we examine another common problem in tech contracting, when the solution a customer buys isn’t up to scratch. What causes this, and how can you draft to avoid it?| On the Record
On 1 August 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Hopcraft and another v. Close Brothers Limited,[1] a case with far-reaching implications for retail financial services at large.| On the Record
The English High Court’s judgment in Learning Curve (NE) Group Ltd v. Richard Lewis and Melanie Probert[1] concerned the alleged breach of warranties and an indemnity in a sale purchase agreement (SPA). The defendants put up a vigorous and multifaceted defence, resulting in an extremely wide-ranging judgment. While much of the analysis is highly fact dependent, two of the issues traversed are worth highlighting – notification of claims under an SPA and service of proceedings.| On the Record
Please join Cooley’s litigation team for the next session of our continued legal education (CLE) webinar series, where we explore trends and insights on the disputes landscape in the UK and mainland Europe, and the issues that drive them. In this session, we’ll explore the most commonly encountered issues arising out of technology contracts and provide guidance on how to draft in a way that maximises …| On the Record
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Stevens v. Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd has clarified the liability of dishonest assistants in cases of breaches of a constructive trust of secret profits. It also provides helpful guidance on determining liability in cases of successive breaches of fiduciary duties, specifically in relation to the application of the compensatory principle and ‘but for’ test, and the availability (or lack thereof) of a right to set off gains against losses caused by the b...| On the Record
The recent High Court decision in Volac International Limited v. IEP Technologies Limited[1] should serve as a reminder to contracting parties to ensure they have effective procedures in place to avoid a ‘battle of forms’ as to whose standard terms have been incorporated.| On the Record
Please join Cooley’s litigation team for our next session of our continued legal education (CLE) webinar series, where we explore trends and insights on the disputes landscape in the UK and mainland Europe, and the issues that drive them. Online marketplaces and ecommerce now dominate the modern world of B2C transactions. But what does that mean in terms litigation risk – be that regulatory litigation or …| On the Record
The English Court of Appeal’s judgment in KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v. Citrosuco GmbH[1] provides helpful guidance on the enforceability of long-term supply contracts where the price for part of the goods is left open to be agreed in the future. The judgment is particularly notable for its analysis of when a court will imply a term for a reasonable or market price, and …| On the Record
The UK Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment in Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others[1] in which it considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, specifically whether those beyond the small group of individuals with controlling or managerial functions of the liquidated company could be ‘party to’ the carrying on of a company’s business with intent …| On the Record
Earlier this year, the English High Court considered an application for strike out of a representative action in the ongoing dispute between Getty and Stability AI. The case is at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) issues in connection with generative artificial intelligence (AI) and class actions in the UK – issues close to Cooley’s heart – and we have been following developments with interest. …| On the Record
This webinar will aim to answer all your most burning questions around drafting the “perfect” dispute resolution clause, to bulletproof your business from litigation risk across Europe. Tuesday, 24 June 2025 – 4:30-5:30pm BST| On the Record
Two notable English court judgments on jurisdiction have been handed down in the last few months – the first being the Court of Appeal’s decision in Limbu & Others v. Dyson Technology Ltd & Others[1], and the second the High Court’s decision in da Silva & Others v. Brazil Iron Ltd & Another[2]. Both cases involved group litigation against UK-domiciled companies in respect of the …| On the Record
In EE Ltd v. Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd[1], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that EE’s claim against Virgin was excluded under the terms of the parties’ telecommunications supply agreement.[2] While the decision ultimately confirmed the reasoning of the lower court, the decision is notable for being surprisingly close.| On the Record
