“We have a dispute. We need to resolve it quickly and flexibly. We are not really sure how”. We are going to be hearing this a lot as the country emerges from the COVID-19 shutdown.

We continue to represent a leading manufacturer of measurement instruments in a long-running dispute concerning claims in relation to its proprietary software.

It would be fair to say that, in a dispute between a farmer and a utility company, the latter is likely to have the upper financial hand and thus pursue a settlement that accords with their own version of events. However, this supposition was overturned in a recent case where a judge found for the farmer who had claimed for damage done to a field that prevented a potato crop from being planted.

It is natural now for businesses to be wary about bringing a claim against someone who has done them wrong. The ugly combination of cost and risk has ensured more are just chalking problems up to experience rather than fighting their corner.

We are acting for a major business software reseller in a substantial dispute with a blue chip former customer relating to subsistence and infringement of intellectual property rights in a legacy database and system.

In an ongoing unfair prejudice petition presented in the High Court, at extremely short notice we were instructed to prepare an Amended Points of Defence and Counterclaim together with a Witness Statement in support of the client’s application to amend his Points of Defence, less than a week before a hearing was listed to hear the application of the same.

We were instructed to assist an engineering design company (“the client”) in recovering unpaid invoices (with a value of £300,000+) (“the invoices”) from a manufacturer (“the debtor”).

The tragic death of Argentinian footballer Emiliano Sala as he flew to meet up with his new club Cardiff City from Nantes on January 21 has shaken the world of football.

The period following the death of a family member is understandably emotional and tensions can be stoked by perceptions of unfair treatment even when the instructions set out in a will are being followed to the letter.

Barry Cosmetics sought to enforce through the courts an adjudicator’s decision in their favour. Barry was the employer and Merit the building contractor.