HomeCategoryUpdate Archives - Page 4 of 8 - W Legal

In response to AELF’s claim filed in the Commercial Court in London, SLM raised a very technical argument that the airline was not served correctly under the English State Immunity Act because the airline is, according to the airline, a sovereign state. This argument led to two hearings in both of which SLM’s arguments were dismissed.

In response to AELF’s claim filed in the Commercial Court in London, SLM raised a very technical argument that the airline was not served correctly under the English State Immunity Act because the airline is, according to the airline, a sovereign state.

Commercial parties want certainty in their dealings. The recent High Court case of Brooke Homes (Bicester) Ltd v Portfolio Property Partners Ltd ought to make commercial parties think twice about casually inserting ill-defined endeavours or good faith clauses into their agreements, or else they might find themselves liable to pay millions of pounds in damages...

In Playing for time – claiming to be a sovereign state, I suggested that the arguments advanced by the Defendant in this case were wholly without merit. Judgment has now been given on the issue as to whether or not the Defendant is a state and on the method of service. The case is AELF...

Some more interesting legal issues arise in relation to the claims made by Virginia Giuffre against the Duke of York.

What is an NFT? An NFT is a ‘unique, digital certificate, registered in a blockchain, used to record ownership of an asset.’ They allow an individual to own any collectible item, for example physical or digital artwork and even music.

This matter stems from a settlement agreement entered into in June 2020. Surinam Airways (“SLM”) agreed to pay AELF MSN 242, LLC $4,125,000.00 by monthly instalments and in exchange, AELF MSN 242, LLC agreed to release its claim for breach of an aircraft lease agreement return conditions and a claim for a much larger amount.

Headnote: Whilst the scope for bringing such data-related class actions may have been largely reduced, this article suggests that the Supreme Court decision may have left some potential routes open and that the logic around the ‘same interest’ requirement could be tested by other claims in the future.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision rejected a disability discrimination claim when the employer only knew about the disability after the employee’s dismissal.

For as long as the pandemic continues, businesses will have their own COVID-19 safety protocols in place. These rules inevitably differ across businesses because what is deemed proportionate to mitigate workplace risk must depend on the nature of the business, how it operates, its size and location. This divergence in COVID-19 safety rules may give...