A - Appeals
26/4/24
MITCHELL v SHEIKH MOHAMED BIN ISSA AL JABER [2024] EWCA Civ 423
The defendant was a company director who had caused legal title to shares owned by the company to be transferred to a third party recipient, at a time when he had no power to act as a director. The defendant was held to be subject to fiduciary duties as if he had been a director [36] and liable for breach of trust for intermeddling in the company’s affairs by causing title to the shares to be registered in the name of the recipient. It made no difference that the defendant did not receive the shares personally [47]. Although he had no power to transfer the shares, the transfer had been made to appear to have taken place at a time when he had power to act as a director of the company [48] and the practical effect had been to cause the transfer to be registered and so confer legal title on the recipient [49]. On the facts, however, it had not been proved that the shares would have been sold but for the transfer [78] and since they had later lost any value, no loss was established [80]. Unless a party objects at trial that a point was not properly pleaded, it cannot be challenged on that basis on appeal [91]. The court also considered principles on which an unpaid vendor of shares can claim a lien [92]. On the facts, the parties had intended to exclude any lien arising [100]. The recipient of the shares was, however, liable for knowing receipt [103].
6/3/24
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV v AMAZON UK SERVICES LTD [2024] UKSC 8
Contains a useful summary at [46] - [51] of the correct approach of an appeal court to an appeal against an evaluative decision of a trial judge. On the facts, the Court of Appeal had been right to decide that the trial judge made errors in the way he arrived at his evaluative conclusion and got the answer wrong.
22/2/24
PALLADIAN PARTNERS LP v THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA [2024] EWCA Civ 139
Considers principles for imposing a condition under CPR r.52.6(2)(b) that the appellant pay money to be held in escrow pending determination of an appeal.
10/6/20
SCHOOL FACILITY MANAGEMENT LTD v GOVERNING BODY OF CHRIST THE KING COLLEGE [2020] EWHC 1477
Considers counter-restitution in unjust enrichment claims [9]. Also considers principles to be applied on an application for a stay of execution pending appeal. On the facts a stay was justified but the court refused to delay the running of interest under the Judgments Act [34].
29/5/20
DE SENA v NOTARO [2020] EWHC 1379 (Ch)
As no application had been made by the time the court handed down judgment, for permission to appeal or for an adjournment or an extension of time to file any appellant's notice with the Court of Appeal, no further application could be made to the trial judge for permission to appeal.
18/3/20
BANK ST PETERSBURG PJSC v ARKANGELSKY [2020] EWCA Civ 408
Reviews principles on which an appellate court can interfere with findings of fact made by a trial judge [30] and the standard of proof required in respect of allegations of dishonesty [44]. In an unusual case in which both parties had behaved dishonestly, the trial judge had applied too high a standard of proof. He ought to have asked what explanation was more probable than not, having taken account of the nature and gravity of the allegation [51] [117]. He should also have stood back and considered the effects and implications of the facts he had found taken in the round [59]. A 22 month delay in writing the judgment had been inexcusable. The unwritten rule is that judgments should be delivered within 3 months [78] but the delay was not of itself a reason to allow the appeal. Also considers principles on which a claim can be barred by illegality [87], and the impact of ‘inequality of arms’ at trial [94].
11/3/20
UK LEARNING ACADEMY LTD v SECRETARY OF STATE [2020] EWCA Civ 370
Considers when an appeal court will allow a new case on appeal [40].
10/3/20
TAYLOR v RHINO OVERSEAS INC [2020] EWCA Civ 353
Parties filing appellants' notices should clearly identify any challenges to the lower court's findings of fact in their grounds of appeal and squarely address those challenges in their skeleton arguments, so as to ensure that (i) the judge considering the application for permission to appeal appreciates that such a challenge is being mounted and can decide whether or not to grant permission for it and (ii) if permission is granted, the members of the Court hearing the appeal can prepare accordingly [63].
6/6/19
IN THE MATTER OF SPRINTROOM LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 932
Considers principles to be applied in appeals where there is a challenge to an evaluative decision of the lower court [71]. The court must ask whether the decision of the judge was wrong by reason of some identifiable flaw in the judge's treatment of the question to be decided, "such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take account of some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion” [76].
15/1/19
McDONALD v ROSE [2019] EWCA Civ 4
Summarises principles for applying for extensions of time in connection with permission to appeal [21]. If a party seeks an adjournment of a decision hearing in order to have more time to make an application for permission to appeal, they should also seek an extension of time for filing the appellant's notice, otherwise they risk running out of time before the permission decision is made. The 21 days continue to run from the decision date, and an adjournment of the decision hearing does not automatically extend time. On the facts time had expired and an extension of time was refused applying usual considerations for relief from sanctions and because the appeal did not have a real prospect of success. It turned on issues of reliability of witness evidence where the appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions.
16/6/17
QUAN V BRAY [2017] EWCA Civ 405
Summarises the approach to be taken by an appellate court to challenges to findings as to credibility and fact of a lower court [83] - [91].
8/12/15
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS v ABDULLE [2015] EWCA Civ 1260
On an appeal from a case management decision refusing to strike out a claim for failure to comply with procedural rules (CPR r 3.4(2)) the court of appeal will not lightly interfere with the first instance judge’s exercise of discretion, especially if the decision whether or not to strike out is finely balanced.
11/6/15
GOLDTRAIL TRAVEL LTD v AYDIN [2015] EWCA Civ 926
As a condition of continuing an appeal, the appellant was ordered to pay into court the amount of the judgment which had been made against it below of £3.64m, to make interim payments and provide security for costs.
4/6/15
FORTUNATOVA v FORTUNATOVA [2015] EWHC 2610 (Ch)
Overall, failure to provide an official transcript and skeleton argument in breach an order and CPR Practice Direction 52B.6 did not provide a sufficient reason to strike out an appeal.
30/7/14
SUNICO A/S v REVENUE & CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERS [2014] EWCA Civ 1108
SEBASTIAN HOLDINGS INC v DEUTSCHE BANK AG [2014] EWCA Civ 1100
These two cases consider the principles to be applied by the Court of Appeal in making payment into court of a judgment sum a condition of the grant of permission to appeal.
8/7/14
AKHTAR v BOLAND [2014] EWCA Civ 943
The no costs rule for small claims in CPR 27.14(2) applies to appeals in small claims to the Court of Appeal.
8/7/14
CALDERO TRADING LTD v LEIBSON CORP LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 935
Dismissing an appeal, the court observed that wholesale disregard of the Practice Direction on appeals by serving skeleton arguments exceeding 25 pages, and a failure to use common sense to work out what bundles were needed for the appeal, could lead to strict adverse costs orders [46].
11/2/14
BROTHERSTON v COMMISIONERS FOR HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS [2014] EWCA Civ 229
Considers circumstances in which a second appeal may merit consideration by the Court of Appeal where there is binding Court of Appeal authority on the point in issue.
28/1/14
FAGE UK LTD v CHOBANI UK LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 5
Considers the approach to be applied in appeals against findings of fact [114].
21/1/14
YUZHNY ZAVOD METALL PROFIL LLC v EEMS BEHEERDER BV [2014] EWCA Civ 333
An appeal notice would be struck out unless the appellant complied with an order of the lower court for payment on account of the respondent’s costs.
20/1/14
WEBB RESOLUTIONS LTD v E-SURV LTD [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)
On an application to extend time for seeking permission to appeal, the court would apply the approach in Mitchell v New Group Newspapers Ltd (2013) and consider whether the default was trivial and why it occurred.
26/9/13
MAHTANI v SIPPY [2013] EWCA Civ 1820
Stay of enforcement of a costs order pending appeal set aside as the appellant had not satisfied the court that some irremediable harm would ensue without a stay.
12/6/13
ATLANTIC ELECTRONICS LIMITED v COMMISSIONERS FOR HM CUSTOMS & REVENUE [2013] EWCA Civ 651
Although case management decisions may only be appealed in limited circumstances, it was sufficient to show that relevant considerations had been wrongly excluded and alone or together they had been material to the exercise of the relevant discretion. An appeal tribunal had correctly held that a lower tribunal had wrongly excluded evidence of a relevant criminal conviction.
15/2/13
SHAH v BREED [2013] EWHC 232 (QB)
Contains a useful brief summary of the test to be applied on appeals against costs orders [27].
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer