April 2014
29/4/14
TCHENGUIZ v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2014] EWHC 1315 (Comm)
Permission was given under CPR 31.22 for a party to use disclosed documents to obtain legal advice from another counsel as to whether a third party had committed criminal offences.
29/4/14
OTKRITIE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD v URUMOV [2014] EWHC 1323 (Comm)
A trial judged recused himself from hearing an application for permission to commit an individual for contempt.
16/4/14
NAB v SERCO LTD [2014] EWHC 1225 (QB)
The court gave permission under CPR r 31.22 for a report of an investigation into alleged misconduct of an employee at an immigration centre (which had been disclosed in proceedings by the alleged victim against the employer) to be disclosed to the Guardian after the proceedings had been settled, subject to undertakings to preserve the anonymity of the individuals concerned.
CHARTWELL ESTATE AGENTS LTD v FERGIES PROPERTIES SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506
The lower court had been entitled to grant the claimant relief from sanction for failing to serve witness statements in time. Both parties had been in default and refusal of relief would have effectively ended the claim.
16/4/14
FIGURASIN v CENTRAL CAPITAL LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 504
In selling a PPI policy with a loan, the lender failed to explain that the entire PPI premium was to be paid in advance. The borrower was misled into thinking that the premium was merely paid over the term of the loan and did not give rise to additional borrowing. The lender had therefore acted in breach of the requirement of ICOB 2.2.3(1)R to communicate in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading. The fact that the loan documentation did make the position clear was not enough to break the chain of causation because the misleading explanation had caused the borrower not to bother to read the detail in the documents which followed the misleading explanation.
15/4/14
KANERIA v KANERIA (RE GUIDEZONE LTD) [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch)
A application for an extension of a time limit made before the time limit expired should be determined having regard to the overriding objective, not by applying the guidelines in Mitchell v News Group.
15/4/14
GAYDAMAK v LEVIEV [2014] EWHC 1167 (Ch)
A new claim involving the same point raised in earlier proceedings but from a different angle, was barreed by issue estoppel because it could and should have been raised in the first proceedings.
15/4/14
URBAN VENTURES LTD v THOMAS (RE BLACK ANT CO LTD) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)
On their true construction, new loan facility letters did not constitute a further advance within s 49(3) Land Registration Act 2002 so as to give the lender priority under its charge to a second charge.
14/4/14
GREENCLOSE LTD v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2014] EWHC 1156 (Ch)
Considers how notice may be validly given under s 12a of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement (Multi Currency-Cross Border Form) 1992. On the facts notice to extend a collar transaction had not been in compliance with the ISDA terms and had been ineffective.
11/4/14
CALDERO TRADING LTD v BEPPLER & JACOBSON LTD [2014] EWHC 1142 (Ch)
It was not an abuse of process for a claim to be pursued to enforce a contractual right to reimbursement despite earlier proceedings between the parties, because in those earlier proceedings the right had been acknowledged and had not been in issue.
11/4/14
PRIMARY GROUP (UK) LTD v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2014] EWHC 1082 (Ch)
By disclosing to an associated company a report into its customer’s affairs, the bank had breached its duty of confidentiality. But damages were limited to £5,000 because of the limited use made of the report. Refers to the need to prefer documentary evidence to witness recollection [20]. Contains useful summaries of the principles of incorporation of contract terms [176], collateral assurances [179], the banker’s duty of confidentiality [180], assessment of damages for breach of confidence [181] and the court’s discretion to refuse an inquiry as to damages [194].
11/4/14
CANNING v NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2014] EWHC (QB)
An application to rely on a supplementary witness statement after the deadline for exchange of witness statements required relief from sanction and was refused because it was made so late, changed the applicant’s case and would have caused delay.
11/4/14
TCHENGUIZ v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2014] EWHC 1102 (Comm)
Permission under CPR 31.20 was refused for documents inadvertently disclosed to be used in proceedings. It would have been obvious to a solicitor reviewing the documents that they were privileged and had been disclosed by mistake.
10/4/14
T&L SUGARS LTD v TATE & LYLE INDUSTRIES LTD [2014] EWHC 1066 (Comm)
In a business sale agreement reference to claims being issued and served was to be construed by reference to the meaning attached by those words in the CPR. In the CPR service refers to the completion of the step set out in r 7.5 (as distinct from the deemed moment of service under r 6.14).
10/4/14
JACKSON v BAKER TILLY; RE ALOCASIA LTD [2014] EWHC (Ch)
Order made under s 235 - 6 Insolvency Act 1986 requiring accountants to produce documents which detailed dealings with an insolvent company.
10/4/14
MCTEAR v ENGLEHARD [2014] EWHC 1056 (Ch)
A debt was owed by a holding company to its subsidiary. Adjustments made to the inter-company account had been made by the directors in breach of their duties to the company.
10/4/14
KERSHAW v ROBERTS [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch)
The provisions of CPR r 29 dealing with CMCs do not apply to a CPR Part 8 claim unless the claim is allocated to the multi-track. Costs budgets were not therefore required. The court noted that rule changes effective from 22 April 2014 will clarify that the costs management provisions do not apply to Part 8 claims.
10/4/14
MORAN YACHT & SHIP INC v PISAREV [2014] EWHC 1098 (Comm)
Considers principles applicable when an agent or broker claims commission on the basis that he was the effective cause of a transaction [93]. On the facts a broker had not been the effective cause of the sale of a yacht and the claim failed. Suggests it is unlikely that a director may be liable for inducing a breach of contract by a company as this would undermine the concept of limited liability [115].
10/4/14
SHAW v WEBB (RE BROWN BEAR FOODS LTD) [2014] EWHC 1132 (Ch)
The court refused in its discretion to make an administration order and instead transferred in a winding-up petition and appointed a provisional liquidator so that payments made after the winding-up petition had been presented remained void unless validated.
10/4/14
LLOYDS TSB INSURANCE SERVICES LTD v SHANLEY [2014] EWCA Civ 407
The fact that a claimant tells lies does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole of his case is without substance. The judge had been entitled to find for the claimant in a breach of copyright claim, despite the claimant’s manifest and repeated dishonesty.
9/4/14
Loan note repayments had been correctly applied to repay senior notes rather than being reinvested. The reinvestment criteria required that the note ratings had not been downgraded. For that purpose it was sufficient that the ratings had been downgraded even if the ratings had later risen back to their initial ratings. Contains a useful summary of the applicable principles of contractual interpretation [37]. Where the transaction is one where rights can be transferred (such as title documents or tradable financial instruments) it is reasonable to assume that the parties will have been particularly conscious of the need for clarity and certainty in the language used and the court should be particularly cautious about departing from the ordinary and natural meaning of the words.
8/4/14
BERNTSEN v TAIT (RE CONISTON HOTEL (KENT) LLP) [2014] EWHC 1100 (Ch)
The court summarily dismissed a claim by members of an insolvent limited liability partnership to discharge the administration of the LLP and remove the administrators. Allegations of conspiracy to defraud the members by selling property at an undervalue and sham marketing were unfounded and should not have been pleaded. The members had no pecuniary interest to give them standing to apply for an examination of the conduct of the administration under Sch B1 para 75 Insolvency Act 1986, because any reimbursement of fees would benefit only the secured creditors.
8/4/14
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v SVIZERA HOLDINGS BV [2014] EWHC 1020 (Comm)
The relationship between the parties as defined in agreed facility documents excluded any advisory relationship or fiduciary duty on the part of the bank and gave rise to a contractual estoppel precluding the defendant from alleging that it had relied on any advice from the bank [70]. No assumption of responsibility could be inferred. The defendant had entered into the agreement on the basis of its own judgment. On the evidence the bank had not been required to obtain a currency swap for the defendant as a condition precedent to the facility agreement, the bank had not made any representation that it would obtain the swap and the defendant had not relied on any such representation. Nor had there been any collateral warranty that the swap would be obtained.
8/4/14
VALILAS v JANUZAJ [2014] EWCA Civ 436
Considers legal principles applicable to determining whether a breach is repudiatory. On the facts a failure to pay on time was not repudiatory.
4/4/14
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v NAMLI [2014] EWCA Civ 411
It could properly be inferred that a bank lending to a customer relied on statements that funds coming into the customer’s account were from a legitimate source. The statements had been false because the funds were in fact derived from criminal activities, as the defendant was aware. The making of false statements as to the source of funds coming into an account, made to a bank which has had concerns about the integrity of its customer, is inherently likely to be relied on by the bank to which they are made in relation to all its subsequent dealings with him. Such a misrepresentation is material to it and likely to induce any loan contracts it enters into with the client. In such circumstances inducement may be inferred without the need for direct evidence (St Paul and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v McConnell Dowell Construction Ltd, 1996). The monies loaned were, for that reason, obtained by or in return for unlawful conduct and profits derived from the use of the funds could be made the subject of a civil recovery order under POCA.
3/4/14
BUCCI v CARMAN; RE CASA ESTATES (UK) LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 383
In proceedings under s 238 Insolvency Act 1986 to recover payments made at an undervalue, a company was held to be insolvent at the relevant time. Although it had been able to pay its debts as they fell due, it had only been able to do so by borrowing funds held as deposits for by third party property purchases, thereby getting deeper into long-term debt.
2/4/14
KAZAKHSTAN KAGAZY PLC v MAKSAT ASKARULY ARIP [2014] EWCA Civ 381
Applications challenging freezing injunctions should not turn into mini trials. The court considered the application of the test whether the claimant has a good arguable case, whether there had been material non-disclosure and whether the claim was for reflective loss.
2/4/14
Breach of a restraint order under s 41 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is punishable as a contempt and is not in itself a crime.
1/4/14
COGHLAN v BAILEY [2014] EWHC 924 (QB)
Considers the legal principles on which a judgment can be impeached on grounds of fraud. On the facts the allegation stood no real prospect of success.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer