Resources

Following a lengthy trial, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE has comprehensively dismissed the claims brought against the Gambling Commission by Northern & Shell plc and The New Lottery Company Limited (TNLC). The claims challenged the Gambling Commission’s conduct of the Competition for the 4th UK National Lottery Licence and modifications made to the Licence following its award to Allwyn in 2022. This litigation arises out of what the Claimants describe as “the most financially significant procurement process in UK history”.This is the third successful outcome for the Gambling Commission, following earlier proceedings brought by Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd and International Game Technology Plc. Sarah Hannaford KC and Rachael O’Hagan (alongside Rose Grogan KC, Barney McCay and Monty Fynn), instructed by Hogan Lovells, acted for the Gambling Commission.A copy of the judgment can be found here.

This judgment concerns certain preliminary issues in an ongoing contractual dispute between an oil field operator and a supplier of tubular products relating to allegedly defective tubing used in offshore water injection wells in Ghana. The claimant alleges that the tubing supplied by the defendant was defective and seeks over US$257 million in damages. The preliminary issues dispute was largely concerned with when the contract was formed and which terms applied. The claimant argued that the contract was based on its purchase order and standard terms (albeit amended for the purposes of an earlier order), while the defendant contended its own general conditions were incorporated.The court held that the contract was concluded on 25 November 2008 when the defendant returned a signed purchase order to the claimant. The court therefore held that the contract was governed by the claimant’s amended terms. The court accepted that: i) the defendant’s covering letter of 25 November 2008 stated that it also enclosed the defendant’s own standard terms and conditions in the associated envelope; ii) the defendant did in fact enclose its standard terms and conditions in the envelope; iii) the…

This judgment on a preliminary issue application in a remediation contribution order was the first to consider the test for what is a relevant building in Part 5 of the Building Safety Act 2022.The fire safety defects were in a “low rise” part of a development which was less than 5 storeys and 11m high. However, the other “high rise” part of the development was more than 5 storeys and 11m high. The question was whether the relevant part was a separate building or separate part of a building.The First Tier-Tribunal had to consider, for the first time in a BSA context, the tests for “structural detachment” and the services separation in s.117 of the BSA. The preliminary issue involved consideration of the legal test, as well as expert evidence from, and cross-examination of, structural engineering and building services experts.The First Tier-Tribunal agreed with the Applicant, A2 Dominion, that the relevant part of the building was not a separate building or separate part of a building because:1.    The low rise part was not structurally detached.2.    The services (particularly the heating and hot water) were not provided independently to the low rise part and could not be provided…