Clients in the AME Sector will regularly be involved in the supply, or purchase of, components and will usually want their own terms and conditions to apply to that transaction. The recent case of Transformers & Rectifiers v Needs underlines that if you wish to rely on your standard terms and conditions, you must take sufficient steps to make sure that the other party is given reasonable notice of both your terms and conditions and your intention to rely on them.

Suppliers and customers would ideally prefer to rely on their own respective standard conditions. But in order to be of any use at all, these have to be incorporated into the contract between seller and buyer.

To make a professional negligence claim you need to show that a professional’s work fell below the normal standard. But that is not all: a key component of any professional negligence claim is to show loss. Often we are asked whether claims are viable and sometimes they are not because, even if the solicitor, accountant, financial adviser or surveyor did a dreadful job, causing considerable distress or inconvenience, unless that poor work actually caused a loss, there is no claim.

In Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd, the parties both argued they were entitled to property sale proceeds, but who took priority? Hughmans acted for a Mr Davidson in a claim brought against him by Central Stream Services Ltd.

Following the Judgment of Ilott v Mitson & Others handed down on 15 March 2017, this has given rise to a number of legal questions for the profession and has caused those who may have a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, to ask “what does this mean for me?”

This year has seen a rarely reported case of fraudulent calumny (or, "the making of false and defamatory statements about someone to damage their reputation; slander" to you and me!).

Following the recent media excitement over the case Ilott v Mitson there has been a further interesting case under the Inheritance Act.

In 2017 we reported on a finding at the First Tier Tribunal that the Root 2 Alchemy Tax Scheme (the Scheme) had been found to be a disclosable tax avoidance scheme under the DOTAS rules (the DOTAS Decision).

This case involved a contract in which a shipbuilding company agreed to build and sell one vessel to each of six buyers. The buyers agreed to make pre-delivery payments for the vessel in return for refund guarantees from the shipbuilder’s bank.

In Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green, the High Court shows it’s willingness to depart from the normal costs rules where a mortgage lender had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol, and how this can prove to be an expensive mistake for a claimant.