Search for: "State v. Clipston" Results 1 - 2 of 2
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2009, 9:02 pm by Simon Gibbs
Master Campbell has previously interpreted "should" as being no more than a recommendation (see Metcalfe v Clipston [2004] EWHC 9005 (Costs) and Cullen v Chopra [2007] EWHC 90093 (Costs). [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:34 pm
Master Campbell, in Metcalfe v Clipston [2004] EWHC 9005 (Costs), adopted the latter interpretation:"For [the paying party] to succeed, I consider the obligation on the receiving party to give notification of funding pre issue must be absolute but in my judgment, the word ‘should' in the PDP does not impose such an obligation. [read post]