July 2018
26/7/18
CMOC SALES & MARKETING LTD v PERSONS UNKNOWN [2018] EWHC 2230 (Comm)
Considers the proof required in fraud claims where the defendants do not engage in the litigation process or appear at trial and service has been effected by alternative means including by Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. A thief of stolen funds is to be treated as a fiduciary holding the funds on constructive trust [76]. Summarises requirements for claims of dishonest assistance [89] and unlawful means conspiracy [92]. Knowledge required to establish dishonest assistance and conspiracy does not require it to be shown that the defendant intended to injure an identified victim. It is sufficient if the defendant knows that there is a victim [117]. Also summarises requirements for claims of knowing receipt [128] and unjust enrichment [140]. Where there are direct and indirect recipients, there is only one true recipient for the purpose of an unjust enrichment claim and the claimant can elect which to pursue. Compound interest is available for proprietary claims and knowing receipt but not for dishonest assistance. Costs incurred in pursuing orders from courts abroad can be claimed as damages [172].
18/7/18
LONSDALE v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2018] EWHC 1843 (QB)
Cross-applications for summary judgment were dismissed. In respect of a claim that a bank acted in breach of contract (by freezing the claimant’s accounts on submitting reports under the Data Protection Act 1998 to the National Crime Agency), the issue whether the bank genuinely suspected that money in the accounts was criminal property was not suitable for summary determination (Shah v HSBC, 2009). Although there was no clear evidence from the bank that it held any relevant genuine suspicion, it could not be said the bank had no reasonable prospect of defending. In respect of a claim that the bank wrongly withheld personal data in response to subject access requests (SARs), there was a strong claim that data processed to determine whether to make the reports to the NCA was personal data but without seeing the withheld documents the court could not be sure they contained personal data. There were also issues fit for trial as to whether the refusal to provide them could be justified on grounds that they included ‘mixed data’ (of other data subjects) and whether the exemption in s 29 DPA applied (because provision of the data would be likely to prejudice detection of crime). A defamation claim could not be struck out. Internal communication of the bank’s suspicions to its employees was publication and was capable of amounting to defamation. There could be a defence of qualified privilege because the bank was obliged by law to report to the NCA, but this would turn on an assessment of the factual evidence. It was appropriate to allow the claimant to inspect the SARs which had been referred to in the pleadings, as this was necessary for the fair disposal of the claims.
11/7/18
LF2 LTD v SUPPERSTONE [2018] EWHC 1776 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied by administrators when considering whether to assign a potential cause of action of the company to a third party [65-71].