We were instructed by a gaming software developer who was in dispute with a development company in relation to deliverables on representative hardware. Our client’s position was that the deliverables worked on the representative hardware, whereas the development company said that when the software was used on the hardware at their office, there were coding errors.
Our client and the development company had been in dispute for a number of months and were becoming entrenched in their respective positions. On our instruction we negotiated terms whereby the parties could move forward in a commercially sensible fashion and drafted the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement eliminated any risk our client faced in terms of claims by the development company that had been intimated in correspondence between the parties. The money owed to our client was paid in a timely fashion and the relationship ended on good terms. Prior to compromising the dispute, our client was facing huge commercial pressures which the conclusion of the settlement agreement alleviated.
On 8 April 2022 Chief ICC Judge Briggs handed down his judgment in the Glam and Tan Limited – in Liquidation v Mrs Danielle Litras case in which the liquidator brought proceedings against the sole de jure director, L, in a claim for misfeasance under section 212 IA ’86.