Advocacy Mock Plan LPC ULAW Mock Assessment PDF

Preview

Summary

Part-time second year LPC notes for the advocacy assessment - Nesbo Gas PLC v Ezra Gases (Calcutta) Limited...

Description

Intro, Bundle, Claim (BoC), Summary? SJ for NRPOSDTCAT and NCRWTCSBD of at trial, 2 issues. I1: Was clause 19(b) of the JVA intended to be enforced? SF: C and D entered into JVA, D agreed to indemnify C for any sums C paid under the terms of such guarantee. SE: HM para 9: confirms C did not agree to not enforcing clause 19(b). PE para 7: argues HM confirmed C would not enforce 19(b). PE para 8: EXH PE1 PE1 para 4: PE not at meeting, note taken days after. JVA clause 31: no other reps. PE para 8: Reeta Uphadya, bias, unnecessary. C intended clause 19(b) to be enforced. D cannot rely on any other representation. Therefore, D has NRPOSDTCAT and NCRWTCSBD of at a trial. I2: Did C breach clause 29 of the JVA? SF: C announced its intention to terminate the JVA via announcement to LSE. SE: HM para 12: intention to terminate, not notice. JVA clause 29: notice would have been served on D. HM1: shows D’s reaction. HM para 13: overreaction. C announcement was intention, not notice. Therefore JVA still valid. D has no real prospect of success. Conclusion: SJ grounds met, CPR r 24.2(a)(ii) and (b), power to grant SJ, if content C has discharged burden. It has. SJ for damages to be assessed. Fin. Costs: Damages £6,322,440 plus £43,953.56. D to pay C’s costs for £1500....