April 2015
29/4/15
WANI LLP v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 1181 (Ch)
In a claim for alleged swap mis-selling, an application to amend particulars of claim before a 5 day trial starting in less than two months was refused principally because it was made too late, was not adequately particularised and would prejudice the defendant by requiring additional investigations at a time when the defendant was preparing for trial. The court summarised the applicable principles [41].
28/4/15
PROCTOR v RALEYS SOLICITORS [2015] EWCA Civ 400
Solicitors should have met or telephoned an individual client to ensure the client understood advice set out in correspondence.
23/4/15
PARKINGEYE LTD v BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402
An £85 charge for over-staying in a car park was not a penalty. On the facts, comparison between the company’s actual loss and the sum payable was inappropriate. The charge was not extravagant or unconscionable and needed to be sufficient to deter over-staying so as to free up space for others and to justify recovery action. The parking conditions had been prominently displayed and there could not be said to have been any lack of good faith of significant imbalance in the parties’ rights/obligations so as to cause the provision for payment of the charge to fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999.
22/4/15
JETIVIA SA v BILTA (UK) LTD [2015] UKSC 23
An application to strike out a claim by a company on grounds of ex turpi causa / illegality failed principally because the alleged wrongful activity of the claimant company’s directors and shareholder could not be attributed to the company. Knowledge cannot be attributed to a company if the company is the victim of wrongdoing by its directors, or of which its directors had notice, and the claim is brought by the company’s liquidator as a result of the wrongdoing. The decision in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens (2009) is to be confined to its own facts. It makes no difference if the defendants are out of the jurisdiction because section 213 Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect so a liquidator can bring a fraudulent trading claim under the section against persons domiciled abroad.
22/4/15
The crime of facilitating retention of criminal property under s 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 can be committed by opening a bank account knowing or suspecting it will be used by a fraudster to deposit the proceeds of crime, even if no criminal property exists until the money has been paid into the accounts.
16/4/15
KAZAKHSTAN KAGAZY PLC v ZHUNUS [2015] EWHC 996 (Comm)
The court ordered a claimant company to provide £1m security for costs, principally in view of the apparent weakness of its claim. The court made observations that parties should avoid heated exchanges in correspondence, exclude imputations that are not objectively justifiable and strictly necessary, focus on working out a timetable, agree facts and issues to ensure court time is used efficiently, and avoid taking points which do not significantly advance a party’s case or which will take up a disproportionate amount of time [3].
15/4/15
BIRDSEYE v ROYTHORNE & CO [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch)
Privilege can be waived by inadvertence and even if the person entitled to it is unaware of his rights.
14/4/15
NANDRAME v RAMSARAN [2015] UKPC 20
A settlement was binding. A judge is not bound to enquire into a settlement terms and ought not to do so unless the parties are content that he should.
1/4/15
RAWLINSON & HUNTER TRUSTEES SA v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2015] EWHC 937 (Comm)
Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR 31.22(2), restricting or prohibiting the use of documents previously disclosed in proceedings which had been settled.
1/4/15
PATEL v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2015] EWCA Civ 332
The claimant claimed that the bank had been negligent to lose a cheque after it was paid in for collection and although it would have been dishonoured, the delay in finding it prevented the claimant suing the drawer. The claimant accepted that claim was unsustainable but applied to amend to plead in the alternative that the cheque would have been honoured. The application to amend was refused and the claim dismissed because there was no evidence to suggest that there would have been sufficient funds in the drawer’s account for the cheque to be paid, or even to suggest that there had been a chance of the cheque being paid.
1/4/15
SWIFT 1ST LTD v CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR [2015] EWCA Civ 330, [2015] Ch 602
Following removal by consent from the Land Register of a legal charge on which the mortgagor’s signature had been forged, the lender sought an indemnity under sch 8 Land Registration Act 2002. The registrar argued that no indemnity was payable because the proprietor of the land had been in occupation throughout, so the mortgage had always been subject to her overriding interest, the register had merely been altered to bring it up to date to reflect those rights and the mortgagee could not be regarded as having suffered loss. That argument was rejected. A registered charge, even if forged, conferred substantive rights (Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd not followed) and by para 1(2)(b) of Sch 8 LRA the holder of such a charge was to be treated as having suffered loss by its removal from the register.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer