July 2015
31/7/15
WOOD v BAKER [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)
The court pierced the corporate veil of companies operated as agents/nominees for a bankrupt and granted an order to trustees in bankruptcy freezing assets held by the companies. The court considered appropriate terms of a limited cross-undertaking.
30/7/15
SUREMIME LTD v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2015] EWHC 2277 (QB)
The claimant applied for permission to amend its claim for swap mis-selling to plead an alternative claim in contract and tort that the bank had owed it a duty of care to implement properly the swap review process which the bank was required by the Financial Conduct Authority to undertake. The claim in contract was disallowed for lack of consideration. The claim in tort merited argument at trial, especially because if a duty of care did not exist, customers who had not sued pending the review, might otherwise be out of time to sue when the outcome of the review produced an unacceptable offer of redress.
30/7/15
THE LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS v THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch)
Considers when a successful claimant may be deprived of part of its costs.
29/7/15
DAVEY v CROXON; RE ANGEL GROUP LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2372 (Ch)
The applicant applied to remove company administrators and replace them with a liquidator. The administrators brought misfeasance claims against the applicant in relation to payment of a dividend. The applicant applied for specific disclosure of documents relating to the administrators’ costs. The administrators cross applied for specific disclosure of documents relating to the dividend. The court refused to make any order. The administrators had given disclosure of much documentation, and if there was any failure by the applicant to provide full and frank disclosure, the trial judge could decide what (if any) adverse inferences should be drawn.
28/7/15
For the purpose of a third party debtor order, a debt due under a letter of credit is situated at the place where payment is to be made not where the debtor is resident (following Power Curber International Ltd v National Bank of Kuwait SAK, 1981). On the facts, the debt was situated in New York so the court had no jurisdiction to make a TPDO.
24/7/15
FLANAGAN v LIONTRUST INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLP [2015] EWHC 2171 (Ch)
A purported attempt to expel an LLP member was invalid. But an ineffective attempt to expel could not be treated as a repudiatory breach of contract as the doctrine of repudiatory breach is not applicable to LLP agreements. Also considers the extent of any duty of good faith between members.
23/7/15
EQUITY SYNDICATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED v GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC [2015] EWHC 2163 (Comm)
Rectification ordered of an insurance contract. Applicable principles summarised [22].
22/7/15
NGM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v WALLIS [2015] EWHC 2089 (Ch)
Claims of fraudulent misrepresentation dismissed.
22/7/15
VAN COLLEN v VAN COLLEN [2015] EWHC 2184 (Ch)
There had been no good reason for the first defendant's non-attendance at an adjourned trial and no sufficient reason for a further adjournment. The first defendant’s application under CPR r 39.3 to set aside an order striking out the defence was dismissed.
21/7/15
SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE v SHAH [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB)
Application to discharge a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on the proceeds of shares refused.
17/7/15
WILLIAMS v HCB SOLICITORS LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2064 (QB)
The court granted summary judgment dismissing a claim that documents drawn up by the defendant to transfer intellectual property rights were ineffective. The court held that the agreements drafted by the defendant had been effective to do what it was required that they should do. In the circumstances losses claimed could not have been caused by the breach of duty alleged.
14/7/15
CANT v HERTZ CORP [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch)
Amendment and service of a claim form without the claim form being re-sealed before service was a failure which could be cured by an application for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9.
13/7/15
GHAZANI v ROWSHAN [2015] EWHC 1922 (Ch)
In circumstances where an agreement had been made to exchange a property in Leeds with one in Tehran, the defendant who had failed to complete the agreement, held his property on a constructive trust and/or there was a proprietary estoppel in favour of the claimant.
10/7/15
MVN v LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH [2015] EWHC 2663 (Admin)
A CPR Part 36 offer to accept everything the claimant was claiming (a so-called ‘total capitulation offer’) was not a Part 36 Offer but a tactical ploy and so the claimant was not entitled to enhanced costs and interest.
7/7/15
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v GIAMBRONE & LAW [2015] EWHC 1946 (QB)
The defendants had been negligent in the drafting of a contract. Issues of causation were adjourned.
6/7/15
CREDIT & MERCANTILE PLC v WISHART [2015] EWCA Civ 655
The claimant’s claim to an overriding interest in land failed as against a mortgagee. The claimant had allowed a third party to represent himself (through a corporate nominee) as the beneficial owner with full authority to deal with the land as owner. The mortgagee was unaware that the third party had exceeded his authority in arranging the mortgage. Costs incurred by the mortgagee defending the claim were costs of enforcing the lender’s rights within the meaning of the mortgage deed.
3/7/15
MORRIS v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND [2015] EWHC (Ch)
Clauses in a debenture granted by a company to a bank restricted the company from disposing of charged property without the bank’s consent. On the proper construction of the debenture, the property charged by the debenture included claims against the bank itself. A purported assignment of those claims to the claimant was therefore ineffective. It was not arguable that the restrictions in the debenture were unenforceable on public policy grounds or as unreasonable exclusion clauses. The bank was granted summary judgment dismissing the claims.
2/7/15
ROYAL MAIL ESTATES v TEESDALE [2015] EWHC 1890 (Ch)
A clause in a pre-incorporation contract provided that the contract was personal to the buyer (the company yet to be incorporated). The defendants, who signed on behalf of the buyer, argued that the clause prevented them from incurring personal liability on the contract under s 36C Companies Act 2006. The argument was rejected. Although s 36C is subject to contrary agreement, the agreement must be clear. Provision that the contract was to be personal to the company was not sufficient.
1/7/15
BUNGE SA v NIDERA BV [2015] UKSC 43
Considers the basis on which damages are awarded for anticipatory breach of contract. An award of substantial damages will not be made for a repudiatory breach of contract if the innocent party would not have received the full benefit of the contract in any event.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer