Blackburn Rovers, the £2.25m 'admission' and the overriding objective
Not only was Henning Berg’s recent ‘win’ in claiming £2.25m compensation from Blackburn Rovers a concerning insight into corporate governance within that club, but it was also an altogether more familiar scenario involving a claim, an admission of liability and then an application by the defendant for permission to withdraw that admission when the ‘dawn of realisation’ reached a higher level within the business.
The parties’ arguments led Judge Pelling QC (sitting in the High Court, Chancery Division in Manchester) in Berg v Blackburn Rovers Football Club & Athletic Plc to comment that the overriding objective has been radically amended with effect from April and that its amendment is likely to have, “a significant impact on the approach to be adopted to applications of this kind, which will now be approached by courts much more rigorously than perhaps has been the practice in the past, particularly where formal admissions are made on behalf of parties represented by experienced and specialist professional advisors.”…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why