21/12/23
AHMED v REHMAN [2023] EWCA Civ 1504
A judge had been wrong to commit the appellant for contempt when there were no proceedings against the appellant personally and no particulars setting out the case against him.
20/12/23
BYERS v SAUDI NATIONAL BANK [2023] UKSC 51
A claim by a company against a bank for knowing receipt of shares transferred in breach of trust by a defaulting trustee failed because under the foreign law applicable to the transfer, the bank received unencumbered title to the shares. A claim cannot be made for knowing receipt if the claimant’s proprietary interest in the property is lost as a result of the transfer by the trustee. It will be lost if it is overreached or overridden such as when a trustee has power to dispose of the property free of any beneficial interest, or if the transfer is to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any breach of trust, or if legislation applies to confer unencumbered title on the transferee such as under s.2 Law of Property Act 1925. Although personal and proprietary remedies exist for knowing receipt, neither remedy is available if the claimant’s proprietary interest is lost by the time the recipient receives the property, even if the recipient later acquires knowledge of the breach of trust.
14/12/23
THE UNIVERSITY OF EXETER v ALLIANZ INSURANCE PLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1484
Bomb damage was occasioned by two concurrent causes, namely the dropping of the bomb in 1942 and its detonation in 2021. As the causes were of equal efficacy and one (war damage) was excluded from cover under an insurance policy, no claim could be made under the policy applying the rule in Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd v Employers Liability Incorporation Ltd (1974).
12/12/23
NTZEGKOUTANIS v KIMIONIS [2023] EWCA Civ 1480
Where an unfair prejudice petition seeks both relief in favour of the company and relief that would not be available in a pure derivative claim, and the petitioner appears to be genuinely interested in obtaining the latter, both claims can be brought within unfair prejudice proceedings. In the present case, therefore, the judge had been wrong to strike out claims made within unfair prejudice proceedings that a director and companies associated with him were liable to account to the company for knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.