Wragge & Co
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (79)
- Employment (44)
- Company/Commercial (39)
- Real Estate (27)
- Regulatory and compliance (21)
- Banking / Finance (17)
- Pensions (14)
- Corporate (11)
- Construction (10)
- Financial services (9)
- Information Technology (9)
- Intellectual Property (9)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (9)
- Energy (8)
- Environment (7)
- Funds (7)
- Planning (7)
- Insolvency & restructuring (6)
- Tax (6)
- Competition/EU (5)
- Healthcare (5)
- Private Equity (5)
- Human Rights (4)
- Insurance/reinsurance (4)
- Commodities (3)
- Family (3)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (3)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (3)
- Crime (2)
- Business Tax (1)
- Clinical/Medical Negligence (1)
- In-House (1)
- Personal Injury (1)
- Personal tax / Trusts (1)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (1)
- Telecoms (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Wragge & Co outlines the background to the case and the court’s decision and provides a comment on its impact for public bodies.
The Court of Appeal case of RWE Npower Renewables Ltd v J N Bentley Ltd acts as a reminder to draftsman not to place too much reliance on these clauses.
In January 2014, the FCA issued guidance on proportionality in the operation of certain remuneration provisions.
In February 2014, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a Q&A document regarding the application of the AIFMD.
A court has reinforced the position that the primary liability to pay under a performance bond is separate from the relationship between the parties to the underlying contract.
Latest update on the European Commission’s investigation into possible state aid for the Hinkley point nuclear new-build project
The European Commission has decided to investigate alleged state aid by the UK into the nuclear new-build project at Hinkley point in Somerset. How has the UK responded?
John Coldham, design law expert at Wragge & Co, examines the recent reversal by the High Court of Trunki’s High Court registered design success.
Rent accruing during a period of administration should be treated as an expense of the administration, irrespective of the date on which it falls due for payment.
The ‘costs’ of facing an employment tribunal claim: increase in compensation rates, penalties and fees
From 6 April, the statutory limits on the level of compensation that employment tribunals can award will go up. What does this mean for employers?
The temptation not to pay and to force the claimant to choose between paying the defendant’s share or letting the arbitration grind to a halt can be a strong one.
This is a short but salutary tale from a High Court decision earlier this month, where the duration of liabilities under a lease was linked to the lease completion date.
The issue of whether an easement has been created on a sale off of part of a larger site, with the seller retaining the unsold land, has again come before the courts.
The Technology and Construction Court recently decided that claims that had been advanced in negligent misstatement and misrepresentation could not be adjudicated.
The 2001 Law Commission Report led to the introduction of the Land Registration Act 2002. This replaced the 1925 version of that act.
In R v Horsham District Council, Lindblom J considered the validity of a section 106 planning agreement that required a payment to be made by the applicant.
Property Update — February 2014: Re Game Station — the Court of Appeal has overturned the law on administrators paying rent
The Court of Appeal has issued its judgment in the ‘Game’ case: Jervis & Anr v Pillar Denton Limited & Ors.
Property Update — February 2014: what is the status of an adjudicator’s decision before court judgment or an award by an arbitrator?
What is the status of an adjudicator’s decision, in the period following the decision but before a judgment by a court or an award by an arbitrator?
In JL Homes Ltd v Mortgage Express, Diakiw and Heap (acting as LPA receivers), the court stepped in to avoid further costs and court time being wasted and granted a civil restraint order.
Finance companies are liable to the ultimate customer on the basis of joint and several liability with the supplier — and this includes in relation to fraudulent misrepresentations.
A Court of Appeal decisionhas ended the legal uncertainty as to whether claimants who had accepted the maximum amount the Ombudsman can award could then sue in court for the balance of their losses.