Ener-G Holdings plc v Hormell [2012]
This is an English law case dealing with some specific circumstances relating to service of particular notices within specified periods of time - and is considered reasonably important in relation to a wide range of such circumstances (which apply in certain legal aspects of business).If you are interested in the detail you can find it here :-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1059.html
However, it left me asking - Why do the interested parties place themselves in such an exposed position when any basic diary operation procedure that I habitually use would avoid these problems arising in practise?
The factual circumstances of this case involve a first notice having to be served within a two (2) year period - with a requirement for a further document service to occur within twelve (12) months thereafter.
In such circumstances, I would always make a diary entry to serve the first notice within (say) twenty-three (23) months - and the second document within (say) a further eleven (11) months.
The result (touching wood) is I have never missed a professional deadline - While (conversely) missing a deadline seems to be a perennial issue which is dealt with by negligent advisers' professional indemnity insurers upon a regular basis!
One gains little to no commercial advantage by leaving notices to the last minute (one merely exposes oneself to the risk of a 'balls-up').
Simply impose the slightly shorter deadline upon the other party - i.e. 'Settle or we sue slightly earlier than the latest that we can'.
Am I the only lawyer with practical common sense?!
