This short article considers the Judgment of Her Honour Judge Taylor in the Central London County Court on 11 February 2014 in the case of Jack Breuer v Alba Leccacorvi.

When a party loses in adjudication, it has to decide whether to comply with the adjudicator’s decision, which often involves paying money to the other side.

Solicitors negligence; but would you have done anything different?

How do you prove your professional negligence claim if the defendant keeps their ‘dirty laundry’ to themselves?

A settlement agreement is a legally binding confidential agreement between an employer and an employee. A settlement agreement is usually coupled with a compensation payment.

You’re unlikely to ever make a purchasing decision on the same scale as buying a home. It’s not just the cost involved that may be daunting, but also the sheer amount of administrative effort that you need to put in before you proudly get to hold the keys to your new home.

We are often asked about whether the distress caused by negligent professionals can be compensated in damages. The answer is almost always ‘no’ and the basis for this has again been set out in a recent case. The judgment also provides some interesting points on case management and when it is too late to amend your claim.

The reported case of Scott -v- Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] Ew Misc B53 (CC) highlights the importance of solicitors being able to prove there is a valid retainer between them and their client. Failure to do so is likely to result in a solicitor being unable to recover their costs from their client.

Until recently, the Technology and Construction Court had made clear, in judgments such as ISG v Seevic and Galliford Try Building Limited v Estura Limited, that where there has been a “smash and grab” type adjudication in respect of an interim application for payment, there cannot be a subsequent adjudication to determine the merits of that payment application.

In case some readers think the answer to the above question is a matter of dry academic law with no practical relevance, some £10 million turned, at least in part, on the distinction between those phrases in the case of Anchor 2020 Ltd v Midas Construction Ltd.