Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
The six RTG cranes will be utilised at the Hutchison Ports ICAVE, a specialised container terminal at Veracruz. Each unit measured 28 m in height, 26 m in length and 13 m in width. The cranes were transported on board AAL’s 31,000 dwt A-class multipurpose vessel, AAL Brisbane. Nicola Pacifico, head of transport engineering at AAL, explained: “Given the challenges of size and weight, our large A-class was the perfect choice for our customer.”During planning, we undertook highly detailed modelling and extensive engineering calculations to ensure that ship and team were fully prepared and equipped to perform safely and accurately.” www.aalshipping.com
The High Court has ruled that a firm can seek damages against a former partner who transferred a conditional fee agreement when he left.Martyn Brown had prepared the CFA for a personal injury client in October 2003 when he was still at Liverpool firm FPH Law.Brown retired as a partner in 2009 to set up in practice as a solicitor on his own account, and agreed an undertaking to preserve a lien over FPH files taken with him.Later that year, the PI claimant entered a CFA with Brown in his new firm, and by 2011 the claim was compromised, with Brown entering a total costs bill of £84,000 to cover his and FPH’s costs.Brown rejected a series of offers to settle on costs and informed his former firm, but did not mention to them the validity of the original CFA was also being challenged.At a subsequent hearing of the detailed assessment of costs, District Judge Smedley adjudged the CFA to be unenforceable and disallowed all of FPH’s profit costs, as well as making an adverse costs order against FPH.Both FPH and Brown agreed Smedley’s judgment was binding. But lawyers for the firm argued that if Brown had complied with his contractual obligation then the claim for costs would have settled at a time when there was no declaration the CFA was unenforceable.They suggested a compromise of the CFA costs claim between the PI claimant and his opponent would have been valid and enforceable. The loss of the chance of a compromise, they said, caused recoverable damages.Brown argued the compromise would have been invalid because the CFA was unlawful or at least unenforceable from the date it was entered into. The alleged loss of the chance, therefore, had no value.Sitting in the High Court in FPH Law v Martyn Robert Brown, Mrs Justice Slade DBE agreed that if Brown had performed his obligation under the undertaking there might have been no determination of the enforceability of the CFA in costs proceedings against the PI defendant.If a compromise of those proceedings had been reached, she went on, a judgment on the legality or enforceability of the CFA might only have been required if the victim had challenged his obligation to pay costs under the CFA or if the defendant contended that Brown had not conducted negotiations in good faith.Slade said FPH could seek to recover damages for the loss of a chance to receive a sum and could pursue its claim, although she did not say whether it would succeed at trial.
The Ministry of Defence has been denied an extension to submit trial documents after the High Court refused it ‘any further indulgence’. The Honourable Mrs Justice Andrews said she could see no reason to grant the ministry relief from sanctions after it missed a deadline last month for disclosure of specified documents.Royal Marine Philip Eaglesham brought proceedings against the department after becoming ill with what is known as Q fever in October 2010 when he was travelling back to the UK after service in Afghanistan. He alleges the MoD failed in its duty of care in how he was treated.In July, Mrs Justice Elizabeth Laing agreed to put back a trial date but directed that all documents be submitted by 21 October.In the event, the defendant had not complied by this week’s hearing, and sought a further extension until mid-January to disclose all relevant documents.In total, 239 documents were disclosed prior to the deadline, the bulk of them (179) on the final day. Since the deadline expired, the MoD has disclosed another 238 documents in four tranches. MoD lawyers said around 295 more documents need to be processed by the proposed January date.Claimant lawyers complained that the documents submitted were provided in random order, with no explanation where they had come from, no explanation of the context and the no explanation of the acronyms and abbreviations used.The MoD said its non-compliance lay in the ‘number and sensitivity’ of further documents found since the July hearing, technical problems encountered with the computer system and constraints on expert resources.In Eaglesham v Ministry of Defence, Andrews said there was nothing in the evidence to explain how or when extra documents were generated, and she suggested the original electronic search for relevant material was ‘not carried out as carefully or conscientiously as it should have been’.She noted that Eaglesham faced the prospect of the claim hanging over him for another year and said she doubted if a trial date could be found in 2017 if an extension was granted. Quantum in the case is estimated at between £6m and £8m.Andrews said the failure to disclose the balance of the document seemed entirely ‘resource-driven’, and that was not a sufficient excuse for non-compliance. ‘I am unimpressed by the litany of excuses put forward for non-compliance, apart from the failures of technology which appear to have played only a minor role in the delay,’ said the judge.‘At the end of the day, “Unless Orders” should mean what they say. The defendant knew the risk. Even though this was not a case of a deliberate flouting of a court order it is not an appropriate case in which to grant the defendant any further indulgence.’Andrews refused the MoD’s application, with the consequence that judgment would be entered on liability with damages to be assessed.