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].
19/4/24
HAYEL v HAYEL [2024] EWHC 885 (Ch)
Considers when partnership accounts are settled and when settled accounts may be re-opened or specific items challenged. The court held that certain errors in the accounts had been proved, and ordered that the errors be corrected.
18/4/24
MORRIS v WILLIAMS & CO SOLICITORS [2024] EWCA Civ 376
It is not an abuse of process for multiple claimants to issue a single claim form for separate claims of professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. Claimants can use a single claim to start all claims that can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. That test was satisfied in this case because common questions of law or fact arose in all the claims and all the claims arose out of the same series of transactions.
17/4/24
NIPROSE INVESTMENTS LTD v VINCENTS SOLICITORS LTD [2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)
On a summary judgment application seeking to dismiss claims made by a number of claimants against a firm of solicitors for professional negligence, the court held that the claims were not adequately pleaded but the court should not enter summary judgment without giving the party concerned an opportunity of curing the defects or omissions and adjourn the application to be re-considered in the light of the proposed amendments.
17/4/24
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD [2024] EWHC 902 (Ch)
The court refused to order a preliminary issue to determine whether the claimants’ claims were barred by s.32 Limitation Act because the claimants knew or could with reasonable diligence have known they had a worthwhile claim more than 6 years before the claim was issued. Considers principles to be applied and benefits of ordering preliminary issues. Here factors against included that the issue involved mixed questions of fact and law, difficulty in deciding which claims should be selected for the issue, the fact that determination of the issue would delay trial, the potential to increase costs, the potential splitting of key witness evidence between two hearings, the fact that the application had not been made earlier, and the adverse impact on matters of case management.
10/4/24
HEYES v HOLT [2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Contains a useful summary of principles to be applied on summary judgment applications. The claim, which was to establish an interest in property on the basis of proprietary estoppel, was weak but not so weak as to have no real prospect of success. Considers principles to be applied in making a conditional order for payment of money into court or provision of security
9/4/24
PROCTOR v PROCTOR [2024] EWCA Civ 324
Considers effect of retirement of a partner with consent of co-partners, on the out-going partner’s proprietary interest in the partnership assets. In the absence of any provision in the partnership deed and agreement between the partners, the outgoing partner was not to be regarded as having agreed to give up her proprietary interest and she was, therefore, still entitled to bring a claim for the value of her share.
2/4/24
RAZEEM v DESAI [2024] EWHC 689 (Ch)
Reviews principles to be applied on a claim to set aside a judgment alleged to have been obtained by fraud [31]. On the facts, the claim was bound to fail and was struck out.