August 2013
16/8/13
HEIS v ATTESTOR VALUE MASTER FUND LP [2013] EWHC 2556 (Ch)
Where client money was pooled in accordance with CASS 7 & 7A of the FSA Handbook rules on the administration of a broker company, client distributions from the pool reduced the contractual debt for which a client could prove in the administration. If the broker had failed to comply with CASS 7, the client could also have a claim for equitable compensation, but the rule against double proof would limit the extent to which a proof could also be made for such a claim to the amount by which it exceeded the sum for which the client could prove for the contractual debt.
13/8/13
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD v MCNAMARA [2013] EWHC B12 (Comm)
Considers the grounds on which permission should be given to a third party to inspect documents on the court file when proceedings are held in open court or in chambers, and specifically under r 7.31A of the Insolvency Rules 1986. On the facts there was a strong public interest in allowing a journalist access to the documents on the court file, subject to limitations preventing publication of certain personal information.
8/8/13
OAKLEY SMITH v THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER [2013] EWHC 2485 (Ch)
A liquidator is agent of the company in liquidation (whether compulsory or voluntary) and does not personally become a data controller within s 1(1) Data Protection Act 1984 in respect of data held by the company. On the facts the personal data could be disposed of by the liquidators providing sufficient data was retained to enable the company to respond to any subject access requests and to deal with claims in the liquidation.
6/8/13
AHMAD v SECRET GARDEN (CHESHIRE) LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 1005
Summarises requirements for rectification in a case where both parties were mistaken about the effect of their agreement. On the facts rectification of a lease had been properly ordered where the parties had intended the lease to include terms set out in an earlier written agreement.
2/8/13
When positions on the complainant’s forex trading account were opened and closed, he acquired rights within article 85(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. Those rights were a kind of investment specified for the purposes of s 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and therefore FOS had jurisdiction under s 226 over the complainant’s complaint about the management of his account.
1/8/13
WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC v MASTERCARD INC, QBD (Comm)
Considers the test whether a document is mentioned in a witness statement and the principles on which the court may order inspection under CPR r 31.14. On the facts an order was refused because the documents in question had only been mentioned to set out the background history.
© Copyright 2013 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer