Bank Notes

August 2015

27/8/15

RE NORTEL NETWORKS UK LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2506 (Ch)

Considers the basis on which directions should be given under para 65(3) of Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, permitting administrators to declare dividends to unsecured non-preferential creditors on an interim basis.

26/8/15

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v COLENSO-DUNNE [2015] UKUT 471 (AAC)

In the course of an investigation into the activities of a private investigator, the Information Commissioner had obtained a list of journalists who had used the investigator. An applicant under a Freedom of Information request was entitled to be provided with a list of some of the names of the journalists. The information was not sensitive personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, its disclosure was for a legitimate purpose and was not an unwarranted intrusion into the journalists' privacy rights.

21/8/15

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v SPENCER [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch)

Considers principles to be applied to decide when expert evidence is necessary. The court should ask whether, looking at each issue, it is necessary for there to be expert evidence before that issue can be resolved. If it is necessary, not merely helpful, it must be admitted. If the evidence is not necessary, the question is whether it would be of assistance to the court in resolving that issue. If it would be of assistance, but not necessary, the third question is whether, in the context of the proceedings as a whole, expert evidence on that issue is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.

20/8/15

MOOSUN v HSBC BANK PLC [2015] EWHC 2775 (Ch)

Application to restrain auction sale of mortgaged property dismissed.

14/8/15

SARPD OIL INTERNATIONAL LTD v ADDAZ ENERGY [2015] EWHC 2426 (Comm)

Order for security for costs refused as CPR25.13(2)(c) (inability of company to pay defendant’s costs) had not been met.

10/8/15

EUROBANK ERGASIS SA v KALLIROL NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2377 (Comm)

It was arguable that part of a loan agreement had comprised an illegal commission under Greek law. The loan agreement was governed by English law. Applying Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera Sota Y Aznar (1920), the illegality provided a triable defence to the claimant’s claim for repayment of that tranche. This did not, however, provide a defence to a claim in respect of a further tranche, nor in respect of monies due under a separate loan agreement. Security for costs of a counterclaim was ordered.

10/8/15

SURREY v BARNET & CHASE FARM HOSPITALS NHS TRUST [2015] EWHC B16 (Costs)

On the facts it had not been reasonable for the claimant to change his funding from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement, so additional liabilities were not recoverable from the defendant.

3/8/15

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL v DURANT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION [2015] UKPC 35

Bribes of £10.5m paid to a public official were paid to a feeder account then to the defendants’ bank accounts. The defendants argued that only £7.7m was traceable either because the last payment into the feeder account came after the last payment to the defendants, or because the feeder account contained other money and on occasion the balance was less than the amount of the bribes, so the payments then made to the defendants did not represent the bribes. Both arguments were rejected. There may be cases where there is a close causal and transactional link between the incurring of a debt and the use of trust funds to discharge it. If the court is satisfied that the various steps are part of a coordinated scheme, it should not matter that a debit appears in the bank account of an intermediary before a reciprocal credit entry. The Board therefore rejected the argument that there could never be backward tracing, or tracing of proceeds of an asset into an overdrawn account. There has to be a coordination between the depletion of the trust fund and the acquisition of the asset which is the subject of the tracing claim, looking at the whole transaction, such as to warrant the court attributing the value of the interest acquired to the misuse of the trust fund. This is likely to depend on inference from the proved facts. In the present case a sufficient connection had been established.