28/2/18
STEEL v NRAM LTD [2018] UKSC 13
A solicitor, acting for a borrower, was not liable to the lender bank for negligent misrepresentation. It had not been reasonable for the lender to rely on statements made by the solicitor without independent inquiry. The lender could have checked the accuracy of the statements made on behalf of the borrower, against the material in its file.
22/2/18
AMEY BIRMINGHAM HIGHWAYS LTD v BIRMINGHAM CIRTY COUNCIL [2018] EWCA Civ 264
Manifest error is “one that is obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation” (following IIG v Van Der Merwe, 2008) [83] and the court can have regard to extrinsic evidence (following IG Index v Colley, 2013).
21/2/18
LDX INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLP v MISRA VENTURES LTD [2018] EWHC 275 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition on grounds that the debtor company has a cross-claim which exceeded the value of the uncontested debt.
1/2/18
SINGULARIS HOLDINGS LTD v DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS EUROPE LTD [2018] EWCA Civ 84
The defendant broker acted in breach of its duty of care (established in Barclays Bank v Quincecare, 1992) by allowing a director who was the claimant’s sole shareholder, to transfer some $204m from a client account held for the claimant by the defendant when the defendant had been put on inquiry that the director was acting fraudulently. The trial judge had been entitled to hold that the director’s knowledge was not to be attributed to the claimant, that illegality was not a defence to the claim and that the compensation to which the company was entitled should be discounted by 25% for contributory negligence.