August 2017
31/8/17
ROYAL DEVON & EXETER NHS FOUNDATION TRUST v ATOS IT SERVICES UK LTD [2017] EWHC 2197 (TCC)
A claim for wasted expenditure was not excluded by a contract clause expressed to exclude liability for loss of profits, business, revenue, goodwill or anticipated savings, and/or indirect or consequential loss or damage. But any liability was limited by a clause expressed to cap the aggregate liability of either party under the contract for all defaults to specified sums.
29/8/17
INSOL FUNDING COMPANY LTD v COWLAM [2017] EWHC 1822 (Ch)
The defendants initially intended each other to have equal shares in a property which they purchased in joint names but without any express declaration of trust. As a result of an agreement as to beneficial ownership of the property after its purchase, they were found to hold the property on a constructive trust as tenants in common, with the first defendant having an 80% share and the second defendant 20%. The first defendant’s claims to further rights over the second defendant's share by way of an equity of exoneration and subrogation were dismissed. The first defendant had not been in the position of a guarantor or surety for the liabilities of the second defendant nor had the second defendant been unjustly enriched at the first defendant’s expense.
23/8/17
WEST END COMMERCIAL LIMITED v LONDON TROCADERO (2015) LLP [2017] EWHC 2175 (Ch)
The court refused to continue an interim injunction restraining termination of a licence to occupy premises. On the current state of the law, (set out in Thorner v Major, 2009) proprietary estoppel could not be relied upon to support a claim to a contractual licence which did not confer a proprietary interest in property. Nor had detriment been made out on the facts of the case. Damages would also have been an adequate remedy.
11/8/17
VILCA v XSTRATA [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB)
A late amendment to raise a limitation defence was allowed. The court summarised the applicable principles [25-27]. The amendment was not very late in the sense that it would cause the trial to be adjourned. If the amendment was well-founded, refusing it would confer a windfall on the claimant which was unjust, especially as the same limitation issue would be before the court in relation to other parts of the claim.
10/8/17
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD v FOUGERA SWEDEN HOLDING 2 AB [2017] EWHC 1995 (Ch)
There was no express or implied term in a sale and purchase agreement which required the seller to provide information to the buyer after completion which might have assisted the buyer to reduce or eliminate a claim by tax authorities. Nor was the seller under any duty to co-operate by providing the information, or not to delay or impede its provision.
8/8/17
PALMER v FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY [2017] UKUT 313 (TCC)
The FCA had rightly concluded that the applicant had not acted with due skill, care and diligence by failing to take adequate steps to address the risk of customers not being treated fairly by the group of companies which the applicant controlled. The £86,691 penalty which the FCA had imposed under s 66 of FSMA 2000 had been appropriate. There were no grounds to interfere with a prohibition order which the FCA had imposed under s 56 of FSMA 2000 preventing the applicant from performing any ‘significant influence function’ in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person, or exempt professional firm.
4/8/17
RNB v LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM [2017] EWHC B15 (Costs)
Although hourly rates are not approved or disapproved at the costs budgeting stage, a reduction in hourly rates on detailed assessment provides a good reason to depart from budgeted costs.
2/8/17
MOTT v LONG [2017] EWHC 2130 (TCC)
Defendants who filed costs budgets 10 days late were granted relief from sanction on terms that they paid the costs of the application.
1/8/17
RANDHAWA v TURPIN (NO. 2) (RE BW ESTATES LTD) [2017] EWCA Civ 1201
A sole director with a 75% shareholding purported to appoint joint administrators. The company’s articles required a quorum of two directors for a board meeting and two members for a general meeting. 25% of the company’s shares were registered in the name of a dissolved company. The appointment was held to be invalid as there had been no second director to make up a quorum. The company was not a single member company because the word “member” in the articles included any registered shareholder. Nothing in the Insolvency Act allowed the company to act other than as required by its articles. The Duomatic principle (that the assent of all shareholders is as binding as a resolution in general meeting) did not apply as it requires consent of all registered shareholders. It had not been an abuse of process for the creditors to make the application challenging the appointment, nor were they prevented from challenging the appointment by estoppel or acquiescence.