A - Authority of agent
15/3/23
THE LAW DEBENTURE TRUST CORPORATION PLC v UKRAINE [2023] UKSC 11
Contains a useful summary of general principles of actual and ostensible authority [38] and duress [136]. On an application for summary judgment to enforce payment of notes issued by Ukraine to the Russian Federation, a defence that the notes had been signed without authority failed. The Minister of Finance of Ukraine had ostensible authority to issue notes. The imposition of trade restrictions on Ukraine by Russia was not capable of establishing a defence of economic duress in English law but the threatened use of force by Russia against Ukrainian citizens and property was, and would have to be determined at a trial.
4/6/20
MVV ENVIRONMENT DEVENPORT LTD v NTO SHIPPING GMBH & CO KG [2020] EWHC 1371 (Comm)
Considers when an agent with no express authority, has implied actual authority [37] or ostensible authority [45] to enter into a contract on behalf of a principal. On the facts the agent had no such authority so the principal was not a party to the contract [47].
21/2/20
WALLIS TRADING INC v AIR TANZANIA COMPANY LTD [2020] EWHC 339 (Comm)
The defendant company was contractually estopped from contesting the validity of an aircraft lease [79]. In any event an allegation that a director entered into the lease otherwise than in good faith was not made out [95]. The director had ostensible authority to enter into the lease [102]. The lease was within the company’s powers and the claimant had no notice of any abuse of power by the company’s board so the lease was enforceable (applying Rolled Steel Products, 1986) [107].
19/2/13
ACUTE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v APOSTOLOU [2013] EWHC 200 (Ch)
At the request of the claimant’s manager, the defendant made payments for building work done by the claimant to the manager’s wife and to a business run by the manager. The manager had no actual authority to direct payments to be made to those third parties and it was not within his implied authority to do so without giving a good reason, but none had been sought or given. Nor was there any ostensible authority or estoppel, because the defendant had simply trusted the manager without relying on any representation made by the claimant.
12/7/12
KELLY v FRASER [2012] UKPC 25, [2013] 1 AC 450
An employee benefits division, and its manager, had ostensible authority to communicate approval of a pension fund transfer. The claimant had acted to his detriment in reliance on the communication as he would otherwise have sought approval from the scheme trustees and approval was likely to have been given.