| 
Bermans accelerates growth with new Head of Commercial and Litigation Partner
Bermans has appointed a new head of its commercial team and a litigation partner as it continues to strengthen its ranks with key strategic hires.
Interest-ing Times – Navigating Default Interest Clauses
Ajith Prasad
While default interest clauses are standard in most lender agreements, they can constitute a penalty if they are extravagant, exorbitant or oppressive. If a default interest clause amounts to a penalty, then the lender will not be able to recover the default interest.
Continue ReadingA Disappointing Experience for Sony
Summer Levy
A recent High Court case in relation to Jimi Hendrix recordings was of interest to lawyers and classic rock fans alike but is also of wider relevance in relation to copyright and the settlement of claims.
The High Court refused Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited’s (Sony) application to strike out a claim brought by the Estates of the late Noel Redding and ‘Mitch’ Mitchell.
Continue ReadingFee Earner Q&A with Jonathan Berkson
Jonathan Berkson, (pictured) joined Bermans in June 2013 and is a Senior Partner in our Asset Based Lending and Litigation teams. We spoke to him to learn more about him and his work.
Court of Appeal backs compulsory alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Andrew Koffman
Head of Litigation
A recent Court of Appeal judgment confirmed for the first time that the court can now compel litigating parties to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation, even if the parties have not agreed to do so between themselves.
Previously it had been understood, including by the trial judge in the latest case, that the law was as set out in a 2004 Court of Appeal case (Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust). While the courts were able to encourage litigants to take part in ADR (strongly if necessary, with the right to impose costs penalties for unreasonable refusal), to compel them to do so would interfere with their basic right of access to the court to resolve disputes under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – which incidentally also applies to businesses in this context.
Continue ReadingExtension of litigation fixed costs regime
In recent years the Government has applied a great deal of focus to the whole question of the funding of the civil litigation system and the ability of litigating parties to recover costs against opponents.
Continue ReadingWill I still get my costs back if I win: The Final Countdown to 1 October
Andrew Koffman
This is our latest update as the introduction of a “fixed costs” regime for most civil court disputes, where the disputed amount is over £10,000 up to £100,000, draws ever nearer.
The implementation date is Sunday 1 October.
Continue ReadingWill I get my costs back if I win: Countdown to 1 October 2023
This is our latest update as we draw near to the introduction of a “fixed costs” regime for most civil court disputes (including those involving businesses), where the amount at stake is over £10,000 up to £100,000.
Continue ReadingBattle of the Forms
Palma Percze
When businesses enter into contracts with one another, it is common for them to want their own terms and conditions (Ts&Cs) to apply to the contract. However, whether these have been successfully implemented into the contract often does not seem to be of concern to the parties until a dispute presents itself. Having the Ts&Cs adequately incorporated is especially important since it is common practice for businesses to conduct their dealings through contractual documents such as purchase orders and invoices rather than having an actual written contract in place. By not having a signed contract in place, the parties open up themselves to scrutiny over which party’s Ts&Cs are to prevail in case of a dispute.
Continue ReadingWho Is Your Contract With?
You have – all things considered – enjoyed a fruitful trading relationship with a supplier or customer over many years, or at least you have assumed that to be the case.
Then things go sour. You locate your copy of the contract, only to find that it was made by your predecessor company, or the other party’s predecessor, or even both. The change(s) may have been due to a corporate reorganisation. In any case there is no evidence in writing of consent to the change, as required under the contract.
Continue Reading