ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related practice notes about NAIR

Misrepresentation—what statements will establish a claim?

Misrepresentation—what statements will establish a claim? This Practice Note considers the requirement for there to be a false statement of fact for an actionable misrepresentation. For details of the other key ingredients for a misrepresentation claim, see the following Practice Notes: • Misrepresentation—what is inducement? • Misrepresentation—falsity (fraudulent, innocent or negligent misrepresentation) For guidance on the closely related claim for deceit, see Practice Note: The tort of deceit. Key elements of an actionable misrepresentation The key elements of an actionable misrepresentation are: • the statement relied on by the representee was a statement of fact made to them by or on behalf of the representor • the statement was intended by the representor to induce the representee to enter into the contract • the statement actually induced the representee to enter into the contract • the statement had the character of a representation • the representation was false Additionally, where damages are claimed (in addition or alternatively to rescission), the representee must establish that misrepresentation caused them to...

Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2024)

Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2024) The general principles applicable in contractual dispute cases pertaining to formation, interpretation and remedies for breach are relatively well established, see: • Forming enforceable contracts—overview • Contract interpretation—overview • Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview • Contractual breach damages and remedies—overview • Transferring contracts and rights of third parties—overview And, while it is critical that each case is analysed on its own merits and its own unique set of factual and legal circumstances, it is of use to understand the operation of the key legal principles in their factual context. This Practice Note therefore includes some of the more illustrative decisions in the field of contractual disputes. The decisions listed below are those dating from 1 January 2024 onwards (earlier key decisions are included elsewhere within the guidance in the above subtopics, including in Practice Note: Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2020–2023)). We do not include every decision but only those from which interesting points of illustration arise. The decisions listed below include...

View the related q&as about NAIR

Can an employee bring a breach of contract claim (without resigning and claiming constructive unfair dismissal) purely on the basis of a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, ie can a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence be brought as a standalone breach of contract claim?

Can an employee bring a breach of contract claim (without resigning and claiming constructive unfair dismissal) purely on the basis of a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence, ie can a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence be brought as a standalone breach of contract claim? There are two issues that need to be considered when it comes to whether an employee can bring a breach for contract claim purely on the basis of a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence: • the first is whether an existing employee can pursue a claim for breach of contract against their current employer based solely on the implied duty of trust and confidence, and if so • the second, on a practical level, is whether such a claim can be pursued in the employment tribunal, the High Court/County Court, or both In relation to the first enquiry, there is no doubt, on authority, that an employee can bring a claim for breach of...

View the related News about NAIR

Arbitration weekly highlights—17 October 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from the English courts, from India, France, Singapore and the USA and from an ICSID trbunal and updates from the CJT, ELI, JAMS, AAA and ICDR, IISD, SCCA and UNUM. Also included is news of White & Case and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) launching the sixth edition of their international arbitration survey, closing on 11 December 2024. All this, and more in our weekly highlights.

Indian Supreme Court clarifies circumstances in which a non-signatory may be joined in an arbitration (Ajay Madhusudan Patel v Jyotrindra S Patel)

Arbitration analysis: In deciding an application for the appointment of an arbitrator, the Indian Supreme Court provided helpful guidance as to the circumstances in which a non-signatory may be joined as a party to an arbitration. In the context of a multi-party dispute, the Supreme Court that the relationship of the non-signatory with one or more signatories as well as the participation of the non-signatory in the negotiation, performance and termination of the underlying contract were important factors that ought to be considered in order to determine whether the non-signatory had in fact consented to be a party to the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court also held that in circumstances where issues of law and fact in making such a determination would likely be complex, the arbitral tribunal (and not the courts) should decide whether or not a non-signatory was in fact a party to the arbitration agreement. Written by Promod Nair, senior advocate at High Court of Karnataka.