This issue of our Resolve publication includes: Quick summaries for those involved in disputes; The Data Protection Act – a useful weapon against bad employees?; Predictive coding - taming the data tiger and more...
Quick summaries for those involved in disputes
This article includes: Costs dangers of issuing but not serving claim form - it's on issue, not service, that potential costs liability to your opponent arises; Relief from sanctions post Denton – proportionality and the "new normal"; Part 36 offers: unusual consequences of late acceptance and more...
The Data Protection Act – a useful weapon against bad employees?
For many businesses today, information is their most valuable asset. The stated purpose of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA") is to ensure that organisations, business and the government keep personal data secure and process it fairly and lawfully. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that organisations tend to view the DPA as legislation with which they must comply or face the consequences. It can, however, be a useful weapon in an organisation's armoury against bad employees.
Predictive coding: taming the data tiger
Judicial approval for the use of predictive coding in relation to disclosure was given in a case in February this year (Pyrrho Investments). In May, Addleshaw Goddard's Mark Chesher took part in a live webcast, in association with FTI Consulting to assess the impact of the Pyrrho decision.
Jurisdiction agreements – an update
Two recent decisions clarify two important jurisdictional rules.
What constitutes valid notice of a warranty claim under an SPA?
The short answer is that it will depend on what the particular agreement requires. But there are some general principles to be drawn from recent case law.
Can you enforce a contractual term that provides that you can't vary orally?
In the recent decision of Globe Motors Inc v TRW Lucas Variety Electric Steering Limited  EWCA Civ 396, the Court of Appeal considered whether a contract could be varied orally or by conduct, if it included an express clause specifying that variations had to be in writing. In obiter comments the Court of Appeal found that such a clause did not prevent the contract from being varied by the conduct of the parties and clarified previously inconsistent Court of Appeal authorities in this area.