From: | Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> |
To: | Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> |
obligations@uwo.ca | |
Date: | 19/04/2018 08:09:01 UTC |
Subject: | Re: Morris-Garner on Wrotham Park |
It at least has the merit of permanently closing down one argument.
If Blake ever came before them (I doubt it will as I don't think it likely it will be followed again), then it is now worth challenging whether it is decided on the correct basis. The reasoning of Nicholls (rightly) comes in for some criticism, with Reed fairly hostile: "seeds of uncertainty " [48] "the difficulty he saw" [65] "soundness not in issue on this appeal" [82].
Good. The majority judgment, on a brief scan, looks pretty sound.
A
The idea that Wrotham Park damages are gain based has been predictably killed off (again) by the UKSC.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/20.html
RS
Andrew Tettenborn Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
|
Andrew Tettenborn Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol |
See us on Twitter:
@swansea_dst
Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com
Read Andrew's other writing
here
Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited. |