UK: Case Law Update 2011 - Issue 1

Last Updated: 25 January 2011
Article by Keating Chambers

ADJUDICATION

NEC Adjudication and Arbitration Provisions

Anglian Water Services Ltd v Laing O'Rourke Utilities Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR 94 TCC

"One of the few reported judgments relating to the NEC form of contract" as the Con LR Editors remark. It concerns the relationship between HGCR Act adjudication provisions and the dispute resolution provisions of the (amended) NEC contract used for a sewage works project. These provisions included the requirement that, in the event of arbitration after an adjudication decision, notice must be given within 4 weeks. The court held that there was nothing in this requirement which conflicted with the HGCR Act requirements: the court had power to extend time under the Arbitration Act.

It is noteworthy that the judge complained that "the task of construing the provisions in this form of contract is not made any easier by the widespread use of the present tense in its operative provisions. No doubt this approach to drafting has its adherents within the industry but, speaking for myself and from the point of view of a lawyer, it seems to me to represent a triumph of form over substance".

Apparent Bias

Fileturn Ltd v Royal Garden Hotel Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR 118 and [2010] BLR 512 TCC

The defendant client failed in its allegation that there was a real possibility that the adjudicator was biased. The basis of the allegation was that the adjudicator had been a director of a consultancy firm at the same time as Fileturn's representative had been a director of another office of the same firm. The court reiterated that the test was "whether an informed and fair-minded observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that (the adjudicator) was biased." It was well established that there was no objection to the legal representative of one of the parties being well known to the judge and the defendant had no real prospect of establishing at trial that there was apparent bias, so Fileturn would be granted summary judgment.

Interaction of Determination Provision and Adjudication

Banner Holdings Ltd v Colchester Borough Council [2010] 131 Con LR TCC

An adjudicator had ruled on the issue of determination of the contract, in which the claimant was to build an arts centre for the defendant. The contract purported to provide that such matters were outside the scope of the adjudication provisions, but the adjudicator regarded himself as able to decide on them. The court upheld this. If the contract had been interpreted as the contractor wished, it would have been contrary to s.108 HGCR Act and the Scheme rules would have applied.

Adjudicator's Jurisdiction on Different Case

Nickleby FM Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR 203 and [2010] BLM Vol. 27 No. 9 TCC

The main issue between the parties to a dispute over a management services contract was whether the claimant could rely in the enforcement hearing on a factual case which was different from that put before the adjudicator, because of e-mails found after the adjudication, or whether, as the Con LR Editors put it, "he was stuck with his 'election' as to the basis of the alleged extension of the contract." The court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction and that enforcement should be granted.

Adjudication in Ireland

Clarke Quarries Ltd v PT McWilliams Ltd [2010] BLR 520 1HC

Although statutory adjudication in Ireland is not yet operating (it soon will be), adjudication is already relevant to Irish construction to a limited extent because of the use of some UK standard forms. In this case, the client, Clarke Quarries, sought an injunction to prevent contractor PT McWilliams from pursuing an adjudication claim under the contract while an arbitration was undertaken. The judge held that the effect of the dispute resolution provisions of the contract was that a party was not precluded from referring to adjudication a matter not yet determined in arbitration. In effect, in this contract, adjudication came before arbitration, which was then the final stage of dispute resolution.

Delay in Delivery of Decision

Lee v Chartered Properties Ltd [2010] BLR 500 TCC

The TCC refused to grant summary judgment to the defendant contractor Chartered against the claimant owner, a litigant in person. The decision of the adjudicator, made by mid-afternoon on the Friday, was not communicated to the parties until the Monday and was thus not delivered as soon as possible after the decision was reached. The BLR Editors take the view that this aspect will in future "be confined to the particular facts of the present case."

Adjudication and Stay to Arbitration

MBE Electrical Contractors v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2010] BLR 561 TCC

In a dispute over electrical works, the parties agreed that the significant underlying issues would be governed by arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the contracts. There were disputed issues on the Final Account which MBE referred to adjudication, obtaining a £37,000 decision. Honeywell sought to resist enforcement by seeking a stay to arbitration. The BLR editors describe the judge as having dealt with this argument "in a very robust manner". Since their contract incorporated the Scheme, an adjudicator's decision was to be complied with or enforced immediately and could be the subject of later review in arbitration when the main issues were also decided. The BLR editorial view is that the matter is rather more complex than this would suggest.

Reservation of Position on Jurisdiction

Aedifice Partnership Ltd v Ashwin Shah [2010] BLM Vol. 27 No. 9 TCC

Already reported in CILL, in a dispute over professional fees which the claimant surveyors referred to adjudication, the respondent client submitted that there was no adjudication agreement and that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. The adjudicator indicated that he thought that he had jurisdiction and the respondent asked for his reasons. In enforcement proceedings by the claimant, the respondent successfully argued that he had reserved his position on jurisdiction and that his request for reasons did not constitute an agreement that the adjudicator had the power to decide his own jurisdiction. It would be open to the claimant to proceed with a contractual or quantum meruit claim.

HGCRA s.105(2) Interpretation

Construction operations: Broad and Narrow Approaches
by Peter Sheridan, Construction Law Journal [2010] Vol. 26 Issue 7 p52

The regular Construction Act Review column revises the issue as to what constitutes a construction operation and the exemptions under s.105(2). The case law is reviewed, with particular emphasis on North Midland v Lentjes (Stephen Furst QC) and Cleveland Bridge v Whessoe-Volker Stevin (Adrian Williamson QC and Lucy Garrett).

See Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on jurisdiction of adjudicator to order payment following contractor's insolvency.

ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Arbitration Law Monthly Vol. 11 No. 1 December 2010/January 2011
contains the following articles:

Serious irregularity
on Price & Carter in the TCC on tribunal appointed expert and extension of time for appeal.

Stay on judicial proceedings
on Drydocks World-Singapore v Jurong Port in the Singapore High Court on power to impose conditions on stay.

Stay or proceedings
on Kaye v Nuskin on English law contract providing for arbitration in Utah.

Serious irregularity
on B v A on whether disregard of applicable (Spanish) law could be serious irregularity under UK Arbitration Act.

Anti-suit injunctions
on Dreyfus Commodities Kenya v Bolster Shipping on refusal to grant injunction against Mexican proceedings.

Enforcement of arbitration awards
on Pacific King Shipping v Glory Wealth Shipping in the Singapore Courts on the effect of a winding-up petition.

Religious Qualification for Arbitrator

Nurdin Jivraj v Hashwani [2010] CILL 2929 Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed in part its appeal against the Commercial Court's decision that the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 did not apply to arbitrators. The CA held that arbitrators are to be treated as (a special kind of) employers for these purposes. The application of the Regulations meant that the requirement that the arbitrator should be a member of the Ismaili community would be void. This requirement was not severable, so the effect would be to make the whole arbitration clause void. The CA upheld the part of the lower court's decision negating the appointment of a particular arbitrator, because the clause was invalid.

Construction Law Journal 2010 Vol 26 Issue 7
contains the following articles:

Is construction mediation changing?
by Peter McCartney and Alexander Dain, Contract & Construction Consultants (Southern) Ltd.

Cross-border mediation and civil proceedings in national courts
by HH Judge Toulmin QC

The Chinese experience of international arbitration
by Hong Song Wang, Beijing Arbitration Commission.

CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT DISPUTES LAW

Breach of Contract Under IDDCO Form

Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO Gazprom [2010] 131 Con LR 9 CA

This is the CA appeal against the first instance decision reported in 126 Con LR. Under an International Day Work Drilling Contract Off-shore (IDDCO) form, Gazprom, the defendant client, purported to terminate for alleged repudiation by the claimant rig managers. On the IDDCO contract, it was held that there had been no repudiatory breach, by Seadrill, but that Seadrill could terminate for Gazprom's non-payment. Gazprom was entitled to recover damages for actual loss attributable to Seadrill's negligence. The CA dismissed Seadrill's appeal, upholding the judge's interpretation of the IDDCO form. Nothing in the contract displaced the normal inference that reasonable care and skill was required and Seadrill had been negligent.

See WW Gear Construction v McGee Group under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the effect of a condition precedent in claims procedure.

Concurrent Delay

City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] BLR 473 CSIH

The Inner House of the Court of Session largely confirmed, by a majority, the findings of the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House interpreting Clause 25 of JCT 80. They applied the rules of causation in deciding on an extension of time by means of an apportionment as between the delaying effect of relevant events and of other events, when both together cause the delay. The majority stated 4 main principles:

  1. Relevant event must be shown to be cause of delay
  2. Whether it has such causative effect is a matter of fact, to be decided by commonsense.
  3. The decision maker can decide on causation on any acceptable evidence available. A critical path analysis, if soundly based, may assist, but absence of one does not mean the action must fail.
  4. If a dominant cause can be identified, non-material causes should be left out of account.
  5. Where neither of two causal events is dominant, one being relevant and the other not, the decision maker can resolve the matter by apportionment.

Entire Agreement Clauses and Incorporation of Terms

North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman and Quinn [2010] BLR 579 CA

Already reported in the TCLR, the case concerns an agreement by the appellant purchasers that they would receive a 2% 'finder's fee' from the respondent vendor in respect of each unit in a development of flats but this term was not included in the contracts for the sale of the land. The purchasers argued that these were therefore void under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The CA upheld the trial judge's finding that the entire agreement clause confirmed that nothing had been omitted which governed the contract, so that the purchasers had not been entitled to rescind the contracts. The CA held the contracts for sale to be valid and enforceable, though the appellants' counterclaim for payment of their fee should have succeeded, since this was a separate agreement.

See Gold Group Properties v BDW Trading under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the meaning of a duty of good faith in a contract.

Utmost Good Faith and Reasonable Endeavours

CPC Group v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Co. [2010] BLM Vol. 27 No. 9 Ch. Div.

Already reported in CILL, the Chancery Division held that the phrase 'all reasonable endeavours' does not necessarily require a party to sacrifice its own commercial interests to meet the obligation. It was considering the Sale and Purchase Agreement on the Chelsea Barracks site and its obligations on Qatari Diar as joint venture partners of CPC. The court thought it difficult to see how there could be a breach of duty of good faith without showing bad faith.

Contract and Unjust Enrichment

Benourad v Compass Group Plc [2010] BLM Vol. 27 No. 9 QBD

This is a non-construction case, being concerned with fees for introduction of business. The claimant operated as a business facilitator and agent and claimed contractual commission or alternatively a fee for his services based on restitution. The judge held that there was no contract on the facts, so that no commission was payable. Whether a restitutionary claim is sustainable was described by the judge as a very fact-sensitive question. Following Regalian Properties v LDDC (Piers Stansfield) a 'subject to contract' stipulation should normally eliminate both contractual and restitutionary claims. Other factors include whether work has actually been undertaken, whether terms are still to be agreed, the nature of the benefit received, who took the risk and any preparatory work done. There may also be issues of waiver, estoppel and unconscionable conduct, reflecting the fact that restitution is an equitable doctrine.

Construction Law Vol. 21 Issue 10 December 2010
contains the following articles:

Economic loss and complex structures
by Ashley Pigott and Alex Freeman, Wragge & Co.

Challenging conditions precedent
by Alastair Young, HBJ Gateley Wareing

How late is too late?
by Alexander Whyatt, Clyde & Co.
(on the need for timely adjudication decisions)

Net Contribution Clause

Langstane Housing Association Ltd v Riverside Construction (Aberdeen) Ltd [2010] Con LJ Vol 26 No 7 566 (Court of Session Outer House)

This was reported in 124 Construction Law Reports, the judgment is mistakenly dated April 2010, instead of April 2009, in the Con LJ report. A consultancy agreement between Langstane, the client housing association, and their consultant engineers was held to have incorporated the ICE Conditions of Engagement. These included a net contribution clause. Langstane sought to deny that the net contribution clause formed part of the contract, but it was held to do so. They also sought to argue that it breached the Unfair Contract Terms Act, but it was held not to do so, since it was not on the engineers' written standard terms of business and was not an exclusion of liability.

Liquidated Damages

Azimut-Benetti SpA v Healey [2010] 2921 and [2010] TCLR 7 Commercial Court

The buyer of a yacht sought to resist a claim for summary judgment under a guarantee on the ground that the liquidated damages clause (set at 20% of contract price) was a penalty. The provision in question had been heavily negotiated, but Benetti had maintained that it represented the minimum it would cost to re-sell the yacht. The court reviewed the law on penalties and granted summary judgment. The clause, read as a whole, had a clear commercial and compensatory justification, and had been freely entered into, during negotiations in which both parties had expert representation. The clause placed obligations on both parties. It was not even arguably a penalty and the court would apply the presumption that such provisions should normally be enforced.

Fitness for Purpose and Unreasonable Disclaimer

Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd [2010] Con LJ Vol 26 Issue 7 542 TCC

In an IT contract dispute, it was held that the software and systems provided by the defendant supplier were not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality. The supplier was unable to avoid liability by reliance on its standard exclusion clauses, to which the Unfair Contract Terms Act would be applied and which did not pass the test of reasonableness.

CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT LAW

Construction Law Vol. 21 Issue 10 December 2010
contains the following articles:

Minor work oddity
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants
(on contractor's possession of site under JCT MW 2005).

Beware of 'doorstep selling'
by Daniel Goodkin, 4 Pump Court
(Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work Regulations 2008).

An introduction to the Bribery Act
by Vijay Bange, Trowers & Hamlins

Tenders must be truthful
by Richard Dartnell, Pinsent Masons
(on BSky B v EDS).

Anticipating the worst: the broker's rule
by John D. Wright, JD Risk Associates

GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Measured Duty of Care

Lambert v Barratt Homes Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR 29 and [2010] BLR 527 CA

Following development of Council owned land by Barratt Homes, drainage was affected and the claimants' property flooded. The TCC held Barratt liable in negligence and held the Council to be in breach of a 'measured duty of care', meaning an occupier's duty of care to a neighbour to remove or reduce natural or artificial hazards on his land, following Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC (Paul Darling QC). The Council succeeded in its appeal to the CA. Although the judge had not been wrong in principle to hold that the Council was under a 'measured duty of care', this would require a careful examination of the facts, which the judge had not carried out. The appeal was allowed, despite the fact that the application was made nine months after the first instance judgment was handed down, which the Con LR Editors describe as a "relatively long period of inactivity."

Economic Loss in Tort of Negligence

Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine [2010] BLR 537 TCC and

How Engineering Services Ltd v Southern Insulation (Medway) Ltd [2010] BLR 552 TCC

Already reported in Con LR, the cases concerned the possible liability of a subcontractor in respect of economic loss caused by negligence. Damage had occurred allegedly because of defective insulation of chilled water pipes. The BLR Editors have chosen to report the two cases with a single head note and commentary, as very closely related. The courts dismissed both an application for summary judgment on a defence and also a defendant's application to strike out the claim, noting that it should in such cases not conduct a 'mini-trial' and should be especially cautious of striking out a claim in a developing area of jurisprudence. It appears that the 'complex structure' theory may still have potential relevance to such cases; there are few decisions covering the situation where one subcontractor's work affects the work of another on a different part of the building. The judge gave leave to appeal to Southern, who had lost out in both cases, in its application for summary judgment on its defence and on its application to strike out How's claim.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Penalties

Interstar Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd v Integral Home Loans Pty Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR NSW CA

This (non-construction) case is of value as an expansive review by an Australian appellate court of the law on penalties. The court observed that a penalty need not be expressed in terms of money, but could, for example, involve a transfer of property: it must be payable on breach. The rule against penalties involves assessment at the time of making the contract and is distinct from relief against forfeiture. The provisions in this case were not penalties on the facts.

Liquidated Damages

J-Corp Pty Ltd v Mladenis [2010] 131 Con LR 188 SCWA

The Supreme Court of Western Australia held that the entry of 'Nil Dollars' in the liquidated damages provision would not preclude the recovery of unliquidated damages. The Con LR Editors observe that this was the opposite conclusion, on similar facts, to the English position as decided by the CA in Temloc v Errill (Paul Darling QC). The Australian court held that quasi-exclusion clauses would have to be narrowly construed and clearly stated to deprive a party of its rights.

Indemnity Costs Refused

BSkyB Ltd v HP Enterprise Services Ltd (No. 2) [2010] 131 Con LR 42 TCC

This was the costs hearing of the high-profile TCC decision in which BSkyB succeeded in its claim for deceit and negligent misstatement against the defendant IT service suppliers, reported in 129 Con LR. BSkyB was held to be entitled to a proportionate order, rather than an issue-based one, which would here result in them receiving 85% of their costs. Despite the perjury of one of its principal witnesses, who lied about a purchased MBA, indemnity costs were held not to be appropriate: the defendants' overall conduct was not sufficient to justify them.

No Extension of Time for Service of Claim

City & General (Holborn) Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance plc [2010] 131 Con LR 1 CA

This is the CA decision on the appeal from the TCC reported in 126 Con LR (as City & General v Structure Tone). The claimant employer had sought extensions of time for service of the claim forms for a negligence/nuisance claim against subcontractors and insurers, at first on the basis of a relevant pending arbitration. Subsequently, the TCC case administration unit advised the claimant's solicitors that the mid-term break would delay the assigned judge's deliberation on the applications and so service of the claim forms was delayed. The TCC discharged the order to extend time and set aside the claim forms. The CA dismissed the appeal. It was too late to argue in the CA that limitation should have been considered separately for each head of claim. The TCC decision did not prevent new arguments as to new causes of action and new limitation periods, and as to acknowledgment, which could be the subject of further action. But that did not provide a reason to overturn the TCC decision.

Security for Costs and ATE Insurance

Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin [2010] BLR 569 TCC

The court rejected the argument that the existence of an ATE (After the Event) insurance policy would serve to meet an application for £60,000 security for costs applied for by the defendant owners to a £147,000 fees claim by their architects. It held that such a policy, because of its wording and effect, provided no real costs security for the defendants and ordered the claimant to provide security of £30,000.

The Commercial Litigation Journal No. 34 November/December 2010
contains the following articles:

Privilege: EU competition investigation
by Mark Powell and Geneva Forwood, White & Case

Jurisdiction: not in my back yard
by Alex McGurk, Harbottle & Lewis
(on anti-suit injunctions)

Civil procedure: an easy mistake to make
by Joanne Williams, Weightmans
(on the slip rule).

Enforcement: the first claim
by Richard Power, Berwin Leighton Paisner
(on standby letters of credit).

Contract law: rules of the game
by Kieron O'Callaghan, Yacine Francis and Nathan Searle (Hogan Lovells)
(on the EC contract law policy consultation).

Bribery Act: commercial sensibility in corruption cases
by Nicholas Cropp, 7 Bedford Row

Enforcement: do not pass Go, do not collect £200
by Anthony Dutton, Christian Tuddenham and George Walton (Norton Rose)
(on committal of a judgment debtor).

Civil procedure: Practice Direction 31B
by Tracey Stretton (Kroll Ontrack)
(on electronic disclosure).

TCC Costs

Review of Civil Litigation Costs – Construction Litigation and the TCC
by Jane Ryland, Cripps Harries Hall, Construction Law Journal [2010] Vol 26 Issue 7 p.589

The article considers how Lord Justice Jackson's civil costs report of December 2009 is likely to affect construction litigation. The article covers the Pre-Action Protocol, statements of case and witness statements, lists of issues, disclosure, e-working, low value construction disputes, costs management and the idea of a Costs Council. The Con LR Editor notes that the new Practice Direction on e-disclosure which came into effect in October 2010 and the TCC's e-working pilot scheme (introduced July 2009) make those sections of the article of particular interest.

See Fitzroy Robinson v Mentmore Towers and Anglo-Swiss under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on entitlement of claimant to interest under Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act.

See LPI (Hotels) v Technical and General Guarantee Co under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the irrecoverability of certain expert costs.

KEATING CHAMBERS REPORTED CASES

WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd [2010] 131 Con LR 63 TCC

The TCC upheld the claims procedure in a trade contract in connection with the construction of a London hotel. The contractor was required to comply with the provisions of the contract, including the time limit, as a condition precedent to its loss and expense claim. The Con LR Editors comment that "If there is one lesson to be taken from the case, it is that the court will be prepared to uphold properly drafted condition precedent clauses, so contractors faced with such clauses and who want to retain their rights to matters such as extra payment under the contract must be scrupulous to comply with the requirements of the same."
Marc Rowlands
Abdul Jinadu

Gold Group Properties Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2010] BLM Vol. 27 No. 7 TCC

This is a subsequent part of the litigation which dealt with argument of frustration by economic factors. This part considered the nature and extent of the obligation of a party who agrees to act at all times in good faith. The basic interpretation was that it does not impose a fiduciary duty so that the party subject to the obligation is not required to abandon the pursuit of self-interest. Rather it operates to qualify self-interest, requiring that both parties act so as to allow both to enjoy the anticipated benefits of the contract. It does not require either party to give up a freely negotiated financial advantage clearly expressed in the contract.
HH Judge Stephen Furst QC
sitting as a Deputy Judge

LPI (Hotels) Ltd v Technical and General Guarantee Co SA [2010] CILL 2926 TCC

Even though the Court endorsed a consent order, in relation to expert (accounting) evidence, it did not mean that all the costs of that evidence were recoverable. The point had been reached when the claimant should have realised that the continued use of the expert would not take its case significantly further and from that moment, the expert costs were not recoverable.
Alexander Nissen QC

Straw Realisations (No 1) v Shaftesbury House (Development) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2597 TCC

The administrators of the claimant contractor sought summary judgment of 2 adjudication decisions in their favour against the defendant client. The contractor had gone into administration after the first decision and after the second adjudicator had been appointed. The contract provided that no money was to be payable to the contractor after an act of insolvency. The defendants argued unsuccessfully that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction or was in breach of natural justice in proceeding after the administration. Where the adjudicator's decision had become final, summary judgment could be granted subject to a stay on the first adjudication, although not on the second, which was valid but had not become final.
Marc Rowlands

Fitzroy Robinson v Anglo Swiss Holding Ltd (No 3) [2010] BLR 165 TCC

The defendant client failed in its argument that interest on the amount unpaid to the claimant architects should be denied because the claimant had been guilty of misrepresentation as to the availability of a leading architect for the project. The court held that such arguments went to liability, not to quantum or interest on sums owing. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 would be applied and interest awarded at 8% above base rate.
Paul Darling QC

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

For further information on how our members can assist you, please contact the Senior Clerks, John Munton and Nick Child, in the first instance, on +44 (0) 20 7544 2600. They and their teams of Clerks will be pleased to advise you on the member of Keating Chambers appropriate to your requirements.

© KEATING CHAMBERS

www.keatingchambers.com

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Keating Chambers
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions