header-logo header-logo

Caught in the middle

25 May 2018 / Ben Amunwa
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
nlj_7794_amunwa

Game playing should be avoided if civil litigators learn of opponents’ mistakes while trying to serve clients’ interests. Benjamin Amunwa reports.

  • The High Court has held that parties to a litigation may be under a duty to correct their opponent’s mistakes or misunderstandings if doing so furthers the overriding objective.

Woodward and Addison v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) was a contractual claim worth over £5m, brought by the assignees of two insolvent companies.

The contract was made on 20 June 2011 for the purchase of a drug. The claimants alleged that Phoenix had sold them the product as a generic drug, in breach of an existing patent to Pfizer.

As the alleged breach and/or misrepresentation had occurred at the time the contract was entered into, the claim was due to be time barred on 20 June 2017. The claimants issued the claim form on the eve of limitation (19 June 2017) and the usual rule (CPR 7.5(1)) required them to serve the claim form on the defendant within four months

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll