We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
West Africa Gas Pipeline Co Ltd v Willbros Global Holdings Inc
[2012] EWHC 396
Willbros had provided a guarantee in relation to a contract
between West Africa and its contractors. West Africa terminated the
contract and completed the project using different contractors,
seeking payment from Willbros for additional costs incurred.
During e-disclosure a number of problems occurred including
duplication of documents, inconsistent redaction, inadequate
collection and preservation of documents, and errors by outsourced
reviewers. Willbros was awarded damages to compensate them for
increased work of its solicitors and litigation support
providers.
The Court ordered that the damages awarded to Willbros applied
in any event, regardless of the outcome of the case. It is
important to ensure that during litigation e-disclosure systems and
any outsourcing used are used appropriately as the courts will not
be sympathetic to errors caused by inadequate practices.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
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.
Those of you who are familiar now with the portal process may know the answer to the question – does responding to a settlement offer one day after the 15 working day time frame mean the offer is withdrawn or does it still stand?
A discussion on a recent case, where the High Court departed from the normal costs rules that follow an offer to settle intended to have the costs consequences associated with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Some important changes to costs in legal proceedings take effect from 1 April 2013. One such change affects the operation of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs).
Hkruk II (CHC) Limited v Marcus Alexander Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch) is about a land owner who obtains an injunction against a developer to protect his rights to light.
The biggest recent overhaul of civil litigation procedure will take effect on 1 April 2013, as a result of Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs. Stuart Evans and Liane Bylett from our Commercial Disputes Team explain the five key areas of reform in commercial disputes and what these changes will mean for you.
Slade v TNT [EAT/0113/11] considered the lawfulness and reasonableness of the employer’s actions in attempting to change employment contracts by terminating existing contracts in accordance with their notice provisions and offer new, revised terms in their place.
If an adjudicator has made a mistake (even a serious one) in his decision, the error will not invalidate the decision. Given the time limits involved, adjudication is an inherently "rough and ready" process, and the courts have emphasised that any mistakes should be dealt with by way of final determination by the courts or arbitration.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
