This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:
Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.
Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:
Cookie settings
Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.
Analytical cookies that measure website use
Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.
Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:
how you got to the site
the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
what you click on while you’re visiting the site
Strictly necessary cookies
These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.
17 March 2022: James Howells QC gives “The Inside Scoop” on Triple Point v PTT for Mayer Brown
14th Mar 2022
Date 17/03/2022
Time 12:00 pm GMT
Location Mayer Brown, 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AF
James Howells QC will be giving a talk on the key takeaways from the Supreme Court judgement in Triple Point Technology, Inc (Respondent) v PTT Public Company Ltd (Appellant) UKSC 2019/0074 at a seminar organised by Mayer Brown on Thursday 17 March 2022.
James Howells QC, the appellant barrister on the case, will give the “inside scoop” on the points of law that were discussed, including the issues on liquidated damages for which the case became known but also the issues of limitation of liability, particularly in the use of the term “negligence” in a contract governed by English law in a foreign jurisdiction.
