Search results
60 results ordered by
Rolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)
In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.
Read moreA narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)
When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.
Read moreSilicon Valley, Signature and Credit Suisse: what do they all share(holder) in common?
In what has been termed "the biggest banking crisis since 2008", both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank have collapsed, and Credit Suisse has been rescued. Whether more banks are to follow suit is yet to be seen.
Read moreAll is not (necessarily) lost: Crypto crime recovery
With over 2 million people in the UK now holding and using cryptocurrency, and the Chancellor announcing that a government backed non-fungible token ("NFT") is to be issued by the Royal Mint this summer, the market for crypto-assets is expected to continue to grow in the coming months and years; so much so that legislation is planned to implement a new regulatory regime for the crypto market.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here