In its recent five-to-four split decision in
1688782 Ontario Inc v Maple Leaf Foods Inc,(1) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the proposed class action brought by Mr Sub franchisees against Maple Leaf Foods for damages resulting from a listeria outbreak linked to Maple Leaf cold cuts. By ruling in favour of the supplier, the majority of the court found that no duty of care is owed by an exclusive supplier for purely economic losses suffered by franchisees with which the supplier has no direct contractual relationship.
While the court confirmed that the supplier owed a duty of care to the franchisees customers, who fortunately did not suffer any harm from the recalled products, it stopped short of finding that the supplier owed a duty of care to the franchisees given the lack of proximity between them and the fact that the damages were limited to pure economic losses due to reputational harm and an interruption in supply.
The Federal Tribunal recently rendered a decision in a dispute between a bank and its client, a company, with regard to a (discretionary) wealth management contract. The claimant sought damages from the bank for a loss relating to the performance of the contract. This decision serves as a reminder of the fundamental issues of substantive law and gives food for thought in terms of the legal and strategic approaches to resolving a conflict.
In December 2020 the new Licensing Code, which regulates renewable energy source (RES) production certificates, was published in the <i>Official Journal</i>. The code aims to implement the new RES licensing procedure and was published on the day on which the first submission round for the issuance of these certificates started. This last-minute regulation caused uncertainty for interested applicants regarding the application procedure and the required documents.
Unlike in England, pre-trial disclosure against a third party is generally not available in Guernsey. However, there are exceptions to this rule. This article sets out the main exceptions - namely, claims for personal injury or in respect of a person's death, ancillary orders to freezing injunctions, <I>Anton Piller</i> orders, <i>Norwich Pharmacal</i> orders and <i>Bankers Trust</i> orders.
In
Secretariat Consulting PTE Ltd v A Company, the Court of Appeal considered for the first time the question of an expert s duty to avoid a conflict of interest.(1) The Court of Appeal s decision, while not deciding the point finally, means that it is unlikely that a court will now recognise such a duty as a matter of law. The issue is a matter of contract. On the terms of the expert firm s engagement in this case, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court s decision to grant an injunction restraining the firm from acting for a third party in a connected arbitration. The judgment contains a useful analysis of when conflicts can arise in related cases and the circumstances in which a large organisation offering expert or litigation support services may find itself conflicted.