April 2020
30/4/20
RE A (CHILDREN) [2020] EWCA Civ 583
Considers guidance on holding remote hearings. Stresses that the decision is case-specific. Live attended hearings require exceptional circumstances during the COVID-19 lockdown [8]. Explains relevant factors [9]. On the facts, the judge had been wrong to direct a remote hearing.
24/4/20
THE LIBYAN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY v MAUD [202] EWHC 974 (Ch)
Considers the approach the court should take to the exercise of discretion in considering the views of creditors on an application for a bankruptcy or winding-up petition [71]. As well as the values of their claims, the court will look at the reasons advanced by the creditors on each side of the debate in order to assess whether those reasons are commercially rational, and will have regard to other evidence to assess whether the weight and rationality of a particular creditor's approach is diminished by any extraneous factors such as personal antipathy or affection on the part of the creditor for the debtor (or those connected with it in the case of a company) [78].
24/4/20
SUCKLING v FURNESS [2020] EWHC 987 (Ch)
Applying the principles established in Pitt v Holt (2013), a settlement was set aside for mistake. The mistake was serious and significant and it would be unconscionable and unjust to leave the mistake uncorrected.
24/4/20
2 ENTERTAIN VIDEO LTD v SONY DADC EUROPE LTD [2020] EWHC 972 (TCC)
Considers the duty of care expected of a bailee warehousing goods [58]. Summarises the court’s approach to the principles of contract construction [221] and the meaning of “indirect or consequential loss or damage” in an exclusion clause [222]. On the facts, loss of profit and business interruption costs did not constitute indirect or consequential loss or damage [241].
17/4/20
MUNICIPIO DE MARIANA v BHP GROUP PLC [2020] EWHC 928 (TCC)
Considers principles to be applied to applications to extend time to serve evidence and loss of a trial date in light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on preparation. There is to be rigorous examination of the possibility of a remote hearing and of the ways in which such a hearing could be achieved consistent with justice before the court should accept that a just determination cannot be achieved in such a hearing [24].
17/4/20
GML INTERNATIONAL LTD v HARFIELD [2020] EWHC 909 (QB)
Considers the proper approach to witness evidence and fact finding [61]. A series of payments over time amounting to £850,000 had been loans not payments of compensation. Although there were no loan agreements, the court accepted that was because the borrower was a colleague in a small firm with a family spirit. The loans were repayable on demand [109]. Considers whether the loans were regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 [110]. The loans were exempt as non-commercial agreements because they were not made in the course of business but out of kindness consistent with the evidence of the ‘family firm’ ethos of the business [113].
7/4/20
FINE CARE HOMES LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 874 (Ch)
Explains arrangements made for a hearing by Skype [5]. The bank was ordered to disclose its file papers relating to its review of the mis-selling of an interest rate hedging product. The documents were likely to be relevant to the issue of the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent financial adviser [31]. The documents were also admissible [36]. Emphasises the need for parties to liaise with a view to defining and narrowing issues on applications for specific disclosure [56]. Considers principles for the grant of permission to adduce expert evidence in IRHP mis-selling claims [61]. The court was likely to be assisted by expert evidence and permission was therefore granted.
2/4/20
FCA CONSULTATION ON TEMPORARY FINANCIAL RELIEF FOR CUSTOMERS IMPACTED BY CORONAVIRUS
The FCA is consulting until 9am on 6/4/20 on proposals to come into force by 9/4/20. Customers facing difficulties with finances as a result of the impact of coronavirus are to be offered a temporary payment freeze on loans and credit cards for up to three months. For those who already have an arranged overdraft on their main personal current account, up to £500 is to be charged at zero interest for up to three months. Firms are to make sure that all overdraft customers are no worse off on price when compared to the prices they were charged before the recent overdraft changes came into force. These temporary measures should not affect credit ratings.
1/4/20
ASPEN UNDERWRITING LTD v CREDIT EUROPE BANK NV [2020] UKSC 11
A bank domiciled in the Netherlands which held a mortgage on an insured vessel was an assignee of, but not a party to, the insurance policy. The bank was not bound by the clause in the policy conferring jurisdiction on the courts of England and Wales and proceedings by the insurer against the bank had to be brought in the Netherlands under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.
1/4/20
W M MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC v VARIOUS CLAIMANTS [2020] UKSC 12
An employer was not vicariously liable to employees whose personal confidential information had been misused by being disclosed on the web by the criminal act of an employee (S) who had a grudge against the employer. For vicarious liability, the test was whether disclosure of the data was so closely connected with acts S was authorised to do, that the wrongful disclosure may fairly and properly be regarded as done by S while acting in the ordinary course of his employment [32]. The mere fact that the employment gave S the opportunity to commit the wrongful act was insufficient [35]. On the facts S was not engaged in furthering his employer’s business but pursuing a personal vendetta, so he could not fairly and properly be regarded as having been acting in the course of his employment [47]. In principle, however, the Data Protection Act 1998 does not exclude the vicarious liability of an employer for misuse of private information or breach of obligations at common law or in equity by an employee [55].