February 2015
27/2/15
KANDOLA v MIRZA SOLICITORS LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)
Considers the extent to which a solicitor should explain particular risks to a client depending on the client’s apparent level of understanding. On the facts the solicitor had adequately explained the risk of losing a deposit in a conveyancing transaction and the solicitor had not been obliged to make searches that would have revealed the existence of a bankruptcy petition.
26/2/15
MATEI v SC VOLKSBANK ROMANIA SA [2015] EUECJ C-143/13
It is for a national court to decide whether a provision of a consumer loan agreement imposing a particular charge and a provision allowing the creditor to vary the interest rate are part of the main subject matter and not therefore subject to unfair contract terms regulation. Considers principles to be applied and gives indications that such terms are not excluded from consideration as part of the main subject-matter of the contract. Stresses that terms which form part of the main subject-matter are subject to assessment of fairness if not drafted in clear and intelligible language. This requires setting out the reasons for varying the interest rate so that the consumer can foresee on the basis of clear intelligible criteria the economic consequences.
25/2/15
MHB-BANK AG v SHANPARK LTD [2015] EWHC 408 (Comm)
The provisions of a standard ISDA master agreement do not entitle a party claiming damages for the mis-selling of a swap to set-off those damages against the sums payable by that party on early termination of the swap agreement.
25/2/15
AVANESOV v SHYMKENTPIVO [2015] EWHC 394 (Comm)
The court refused to set aside judgment in default of acknowledgment of service. Although there was a realistic defence, the set aside application had not been made promptly under CPR 13.3(2). There had been a delay of 8 months which was a lengthy, serious and highly culpable default. The specific considerations which CPR 3.9 required to be given weight pointed to the same conclusion.
25/2/15
NGM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v WALLIS [2015] EWHC 461 (Ch)
A claimant arranged ATE cover and offered an undertaking to inform the defendants if the policy was cancelled or if information was received giving reason to believe that it would be cancelled. In those circumstances there was no reason to believe the claimant would be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so and the power to order security for costs did not arise.
25/2/15
HAKIMZAY LTD v SWAILES [2015] EWHC B14 (Ch)
A buyer's notice making time of the essence of a contract for the sale of land fixed the time for performance. The seller's failure to comply was a repudiatory breach. The seller’s subsequent notice of rescission was ineffective. A late application to amend was rejected.
23/2/15
HOME GROUP LTD v MATREJEK [2015] EWHC 441 (QB)
Appeal dismissed against grant of relief from sanction of striking out for claimant’s failure to attend a directions hearing.
20/2/15
MOND v SYNERGI PARTNERS LTD [2015] EWHC 964 (Ch)
A retrospective administration order was refused where the only purpose of the order was to validate a company moving from administration into voluntary liquidation. Order for compulsory winding-up made.
20/2/15
IBM UNITED KINGDOM HOLDINGS LTD v DALGLEISH [2015] EWHC 389 (Ch)
A contract procured as the result of a breach of the contractual duty of trust and confidence is voidable; the innocent party is not restricted to a claim in damages. There is no good reason why, as a matter of principle, this should not be so any more than in cases of duress, fraud or mistake [85].
20/2/15
PEAK HOTELS & RESORTS LTD v TAREK INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] EWHC 386
Considers cross-applications for security for costs in relation to a claim and counterclaim by foreign registered companies. Security in relation to the claim was ordered principally on grounds of the claimant’s apparent inability to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so. Security in relation to the defendant’s counterclaim was refused, principally because the counterclaim related to the same subject matter as the claim.
20/2/15
ROSSERLANE CONSULTANTS LTD v CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL [2015] EWHC 384 (Ch)
An agreement giving a bank a right to sell assets in certain circumstances was a self standing commercial agreement freely negotiated between the parties and complete in its form. It had been professionally drafted and it was not possible to imply a term that the bank would take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable.
20/2/15
BREITENFIELD UK LTD v HARRISON [2015] EWHC 399 (Ch)
Between them, a company director and others were liable for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful means conspiracy and dishonest assistance in setting up a rival company.
20/2/15
TCHENGUIZ v GRANT THORNTON UK LLP [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm)
Stresses the need to keep pleadings in the Commercial Court within the 25 page limit specified in the Commercial Court Guide unless otherwise permitted by the court. Particulars of claim running to 94 pages were struck out and ordered to be re-pleaded within a 45 page limit.
20/2/15
FOS had been right to determine that it had jurisdiction in relation to a complaint against accountants and that the scheme could be regarded as a collective investment scheme. Tax advice can include investment advice even if the dominant purpose for which the advice is sought is tax avoidance.
19/2/15
PROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP LTD v THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 321 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for inspection of a document in circumstances where production of the document for inspection may render the disclosing party liable for contempt in another jurisdiction. On the facts RBS was ordered to allow inspection of a confidential attachment to a deferred prosecution agreement which it entered into with the US Department of Justice regarding LIBOR manipulation.
19/2/15
PROPERTY ALLIANCE GROUP LTD v THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] EWHC 384 (Ch)
In addition to its order requiring disclosure of the attachment to the US Department of Justice deferred prosecution agreement, in a judgment which the court restricted from publication until 11 March 2014, the court ordered the bank to allow inspection of 5 reports made by the bank to the Japanese Financial Services Authority which were potentially relevant to the issue of LIBOR manipulation.
19/2/15
DAVY v PICKERING [2015] EWHC 380 (Ch)
For the purpose of the limitation period applicable to a negligence claim against a company, the period between the company’s dissolution and restoration to the register was to be disregarded.
18/2/15
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v GRANT THORNTON UK LLP [2015] EWHC 320 (Comm)
A company’s auditors owed no duty of care to a bank in relation to two reports which the auditors prepared and which contained disclaimers stating that no responsibility was accepted to anyone other than the company and its directors. The disclaimers were not unreasonable contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
13/2/15
D&G CARS LTD v ESSEX POLICE AUTHORITY [2015] EWHC 226 (QB)
Considers principles to be applied in deciding whether a breach of contract is a repudiatory breach [170], circumstances in which a term as to good faith or integrity and honesty is to be implied into a contract [174] and circumstances in which liability for acts involving dishonesty or lack of integrity can be attributed to a company [178].
12/2/15
MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA v COTTONEX ANSTALT [2015] EWHC 283 (Comm)
Liquidated damages payable under a contract are not be be reduced on grounds of the receiving party’s failure to mitigate [71]. On the facts, a contracting party had not been entitled to refuse to accept a repudiatory breach and instead to keep the contract alive solely to claim liquidated (rather than unliquidated) damages for continuing breaches by the other party. If the claimant had been allowed to keep the contract alive for that purpose the liquidated damages clause would have been a penalty [116].
11/2/15
GARNHAM v MILLAR [2015] EWHC 274 (Ch)
Claim struck out as an abuse of process. Extended civil restraint order made.
10/2/15
JACKSON v THOMPSONS SOLICITORS [2015] EWHC 549 (QB)
The defendants failed to give notice in accordance with CPR 44.15(2) using the prescribed form (N251) that they and counsel were acting under CFAs. The court granted relief from sanction under CPR 3.9 applying the test in Denton v White.
6/2/15
JACKSON v THOMPSONS SOLICITORS [2015] EWHC 218 (QB)
Contains a useful summary of the law as to bias [14] and the torts of abuse of process [27], causing loss by unlawful means and unlawful means conspiracy [30], procuring a breach of contract [33] and deceit [36]. Claims that the defendant induced an ATE insurer to avoid cover and procured the failure of an application for a group litigation order failed on the facts.
4/2/15
SIEGEL v PUMMELL [2015] EWHC 195 (QB)
Considers principles on which costs may be awarded on an indemnity basis.
3/2/15
EXCALIBUR VENTURES LLC v TEXAS KEYSTONE INC [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm)
Sets out principles on which the court will award a payment on account of costs [14]. In a case involving litigation on a very substantial scale in which costs had been awarded on the indemnity basis, a payment on account of 80% was ordered.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer