JK Moving Services’ Post

Hugh Tait from Woodsford, funding the claim, explains how the recent update is an essential step forward in the case. On 1 June, the UK Supreme Court announced it was refusing any further appeals against certification of Mark McLaren’s #collectiveaction to proceed. This means the claim can continue to proceed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal to seek compensation for UK #consumers and #businesses that allegedly paid inflated prices due to the Defendants' actions. #cardeliverycharges #newcar #shipping #shippingindustry #CarDeliveryCharges

The class representative in the Car Delivery Charges Cartel has reached the first ever settlement in an opt-out competition class action. While it will be interesting to follow the settlement approval process in the CAT, this is a significant and positive development for the UK collective actions regime. #classaction #antitrust #competitionlaw #collectiveredress #collectiveactions https://lnkd.in/edTZScNm

Moving right along! 🚙 Explore the law as it applies to planes, trains, automobiles & more in the February Transportation-focused edition of BarTalk: https://bit.ly/3g5dBo6

This is an interesting piece of sponsorship in terms of brand and target audience. Without knowing the details and whether it is in part an off-setting of legal fees or a pure sponsorship, the KPIs in terms of evaluating the sponsorship will be intriguing. Cumulative TV audiences for F1 in the 2022 season totaled 1.54 billion and average viewership for races was 70 million, so they are clearly reaching a huge, global audience. The average age of a global F1 viewer is 40, so there's a sizeable percentage of that global audience that wouldn't normally be a target for a law firm, but still impressive numbers. However, as an F1 fan myself, I think there now is a lot of 'brand clutter' on the cars and the drivers, to the point where they blur and the smaller sized logos get overpowered by the larger ones. On the McLaren car alone, you have Chrome, Dell, Workday, Dropbox, Cisco, De Walt, Cadence, DP World and no doubt a few more. That's a lot of competition.

Important clarifications from the Court of Appeal on the #cpo regime in the McLaren case: (1) challenges to CAT judgments should be by way of appeal, not judicial review - the Court of Appeal advocates a broad interpretation of 'as to the award of damages', concluding that interim case management decisions in a damages case can be presumed to meet that requirement. This should reduce the cost and administrative burden of bringing challenges to CAT judgments given the prevailing practice had been to bring simultaneous appeal and judicial review challenges (2) there is no express prohibition on speaking to class members - instead a case by case assessment is required. This is likely welcome news to defendants in CPO cases where the class is (as one would expect) comprised of customers and other trading partners who they engage with regularly. For more detail see our briefing: https://lnkd.in/er_xgPBa Kim Dietzel, Stephen Wisking, Gayatri Gogoi, Ruth Allen (née Sander), Naomi Reid, Joe Moorcroft-Moran

Those interested in appeals from arbitral awards may want to read the decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Hudson’s Bay Company v. Piret Holdings, refusing leave to appeal. I'm grateful to Robert Deane for pointing me to this case, which is both encouraging and discouraging. https://lnkd.in/gU9Eh5ZZ The BCCA per Saunders JA properly refused leave to appeal an award issued in a rent reset arbitration. The applicant Hudson's Bay Company argued that the arbitrator had failed to address a fundamental question in the dispute, but the Court found that the arbitrator did not fail to address the question, so there was no extricable error law and no grounds for appeal. The encouraging part of the decision is the Court's statement that "this appears to me to be an arbitration award that fits well within the class of questions that are intended, by contract, to be submitted to a single decision maker without resort onward to the courts." The Court thus correctly identified the parties' decision to submit their dispute to arbitration as a relevant factor, and appropriately identified the path to court review in such cases as a narrow one. The confounding part is that The Bay's argument was, in essence, that the arbitrator had ignored a key line of argument it had advanced. The Court found that the arbitrator had in fact dealt with that argument, and properly slapped down The Bay's attempt to identify an extricable error of law. Nevertheless, I remain concerned by the BC courts' willingness to "extricate the inextricable". The problem lies in an obiter dictum, in which Madam Justice Saunders observed that, "Were it clear to me that the arbitrator had failed to address a threshold question in the arbitration, I would agree that the necessary question of law ... had been identified so as to support the granting of leave to appeal." I cannot concur. If the arbitrator had failed in the way The Bay alleged, it should not be characterized as an error of law, but rather as either a failure to fulfil the arbitrator's mandate (failure to resolve an issue put to arbitration) or unfair process (failure to accord a party a reasonable opportunity to make its case). Either way, the proper remedy would be set-aside, not appeal. In short, while this decision came out right, confusion between the relative domains of appeal and set-aside persists, and the BCCA's unfortunate decision in Escape 101 Ventures v March of Dimes continues to haunt the BC case law on appeals from arbitral awards.

Map of locations and winning bidders of former YRC terminals.

#CASE - The Belgian Supreme Court has ruled in a matter concerning the immediate termination of a distribution agreement. The decision was based on an explicit termination clause. ❓ What was the case? A contract clause allowed Rolex to terminate the agreement not only in case of contractual breach but also "for any other valid reason." Rolex assumed that the accusation of fraud by the distributor's directors concerned such a "valid reason". According to the Court of Appeal, the impact on Rolex's image and reputation was objectively serious enough to qualify as a "valid reason", enabling Rolex to invoke the explicit termination clause to terminate the agreement unilaterally. ❌ ❗️However, the Supreme Court rejected the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Discover why the Supreme Court acted stricter and why it is important to pay specific atttention to the wording of an explicit termination clause when drafting a distribution contract. 📄 https://lnkd.in/emywRqpD #astrealaw #astrealawattorneys #publication #BelgianSupremeCourt #ExplicitTerminationClause #DistributionAgreement #CommercialLaw #DistributionLaw Team commercial & distribution law: Barbara Terriere, Olivier Van Fraeyenhoven, Levi Van Dijck, Julie Wouters, Louise Denayer, Thaissa Nuyens, Katrijn Huon & Pierre De Strycker

The recent "crashgate" case in Formula 1 is a reminder that there is always hope and that some decisions are not always final. David from our Litigation team explains the Renault Formula 1 crash controversy and the law of judicial review; learn more here: https://ow.ly/ylKu50Q284S. At Miller Samuel Hill Brown, we are committed to taking the time to understand clients and providing tailored solutions that can make a real difference. If you feel that a judicial review could be a viable option for your case, we urge you to contact us today. #LegalSolutions #JudicialReview #Formula1 #Crashgate

#Attorneys Jeff Mandell and Erin Deeley K. Deeley presented for the James E. Doyle American Inn of #Court on Wednesday. “Novel Applications of the #Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law” included a high-level overview of the WFDL as well as unique and unprecedented uses of the statute among dealers and grantors. Click to read more on the WFDL from our subject matter experts: https://lnkd.in/gTEVxaMC #business #fairdealershiplaw #wisconsinfairdealershiplaw