Posts

Showing posts from October, 2026

Corporate Personality and Damages for Loss Caused to a Third Party Company: Forthwell v Pontegadea (UKSC)

Image
With its recent decision in Forthwell Ltd v Pontegadea UK Ltd [2026] UKSC 33, handed down on September 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considered a particularly important issue of contract law: whether a contracting party can claim damages for loss suffered by a third party, and specifically by a company within the same group. The case concerned the historic Rogano restaurant in Glasgow. Forthwell, the tenant of the property, had granted the use of the premises to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lynnet Leisure, which operated the restaurant. Following severe flood and fire damage, the restaurant was unable to reopen, and Lynnet suffered a significant loss of profits. Forthwell sought to recover these losses from the landlord. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim. It affirmed the general rule that a contracting party may recover damages for its own loss and not, in principle, for loss suffered by a third party. The Court declined to create a new, broader exception that ...

Legal Professional Privilege in the Digital Age: Recent Case Law of the ECtHR and the Core Principles That Should Govern Searches

Image
By Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer The protection of legal professional privilege is a fundamental pillar of the right to respect for private life and correspondence (Article 8 of the ECHR), as well as of the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). In recent years, as the use of digital means in the practice of law has become firmly established, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered important judgments focusing mainly on the digital age, searches of law offices and the surveillance of communications between lawyer and client. Set out below is a selection of ECtHR case law on such matters: Seizure and retention of vast amounts of lawyers' digital data In Kırdök and Others v. Turkey (3 December 2019), the national authorities seized all the hard drives and digital files of a law office in the course of an investigation, without distinguishing between the documents relating to the case and the confidential files of other clients. The Court found a violat...