26/2/19
EMMOTT v MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 219
In a post-judgment freezing order it will sometimes and perhaps usually be inappropriate to include the so-called “Angel Bell” exception allowing payments in the ordinary course of business [56]. The appropriateness or otherwise of the exception in such a case should be treated as turning on the facts of the individual case, having regard to the ambit of the freezing order sought, the assets frozen and the impact on the judgment debtor’s business [57]. On the facts the judge below had been entitled to remove the exception. This was not a case where the debtor could not pay; the debtor had made every effort to resist enforcement and could have resolved the matter by paying the judgment sum into court.
25/2/19
MARME INVERSIONES 2007 SL v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2019] EWHC 366 (Comm)
A claim to rescind interest rate hedging contracts on grounds of manipulation of the EURIBOR reference rate failed. The court reviewed the principles for implying representations [115]. None of the pleaded representations could be implied. A representation that RBS was not manipulating or attempting to manipulate EURIBOR had not been pleaded and even if implied, there was no evidence to show it would have been false. The court reviewed the requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation [253] (including where knowledge of falsity is not known to the person making the representation) and the circumstances in which an adverse inference can be drawn from destruction of documents [268] or from a witness not being called [271]. The court also reviewed principles of reliance [278] (including the need for the claimant to have given some thought to any implied representation) and causation [289]. On the facts no reliance was established, the contracts had been affirmed and could not be partially rescinded. An alternative claim for damages would also have failed.
25/2/19
BRIGGS v CLAY [2019] EWHC 102 (Ch)
Considers principles applicable to privilege attaching to without prejudice communications and waiver of privilege [42-74]. The fact that the communications had taken place was admissible and relevant to certain issues in the proceedings, but the content of the communications was subject to without prejudice privilege and was inadmissible.
11/2/19
BREWER v IQBAL [2019] EWHC 182 (Ch)
The court reviewed the fiduciary duties of administrators of companies [37] and their duties of care [52]. On the facts an administrator had sold the company's assets at an undervalue to a company incorporated by the company's directors. He had breached his fiduciary duty by failing to act with single-minded loyalty to the company and by failings in his decision-making. He had not relied on suitably qualified or competent professional advice. Compensation in equity was to be measured by the objective value of the property lost, determined at the date when the account was taken, and with the benefit of hindsight but was discounted to reflect the fact that there would be a buyers’ market for the property [112].