header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Contract—Oral contract

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
03 November 2017
Issue: 7768 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

​Mybarrister Ltd v Hewetson and others [2017] EWHC 2624 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 146 (Oct)

The applicant third party’s application for summary judgment on an additional claim based on an alleged collateral contract was allowed. The alleged collateral contract probably had not imposed a personal liability on the applicant and, if it had done, it would have constituted a ‘see to it’ obligation which would have fallen within the scope of the Statute of Frauds 1677.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
Conveyancers celebrate U-turn over mortgage handbook fee
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
Are you suited to a career in prosecution?
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
LSB marks Mazur homework
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)
NLJ this week: Stuck in the past?
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
NLJ this week: No automatic bar on ‘user damages’
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll