28/6/19
SIMANTOB v SHAVLEYAN [2019] EWCA Civ 1105
Forbearance to raise a defence later found to be without legal merit can constitute sufficient consideration to support an agreement between the parties. A variation by which the appellant agreed to accept $800,000 in full discharge of the respondent's liability under a settlement agreement was binding. The respondent gave good consideration by agreeing to give up his argument that a clause in the settlement agreement requiring payment of $1,000 per day was a penalty, even though that argument failed in later proceedings between the parties.
28/6/19
DINGLIS v DINGLIS [2019] EWHC 1664 (Ch)
The conduct of the first respondent (who owned/controlled a majority shareholding via the second respondent) had been unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner (a minority shareholder) and in breach of the first respondent’s duties under the Companies Act 2006 ss 172 and 177. The respondents were ordered to buy the petitioner's shares.
26/6/19
PROMONTORIA (HENRICO) LTD v MELTON [2019] EWHC 2243 (Ch)
The court had been entitled to construe a reference to the debtor in a schedule to a deed of assignment as indicating that the deed had assigned a loan made to the debtor and legal charges securing the loan. The court had been entitled to take into account unchallenged evidence given on behalf of the claimant confirming the assignment and a letter from the assignor telling the debtor that the loan was going to be assigned to the claimant. The court had also been entitled to find that the assignment had been executed on behalf of the assignor by persons whose names were printed in the deed, although their signatures had been redacted.
20/6/19
GRANADA UK RENTAL AND RETAIL LTD v PENSIONS REGULATOR [2019] EWCA Civ 1032
Considers the meaning of “associate” in s 435 Insolvency Act 1986. A person registered as the holder of shares carrying a third or more of the total votes attaching to the relevant company’s issued shares, and so as between himself and the company “entitled to exercise … one third or more of the voting power” is also to be considered an associate of the company within s 435(10)(b) [129].
19/6/19
SEAFOOD SHACK LTD v DARLOW [2019] EWHC 1567 (Ch)
Considers whether an alleged misnomer of a party in a document can be cured through the process of construction [30] or rectification [43]. On the facts, neither was possible.
18/6/19
HYDE v NYGATE [2019] EWHC 1516 (Ch)
An application to amend a claim after expiry of the primary limitation period was refused on grounds that the amendments sought to introduce a new claim which did not arise out of substantially the same facts as were already in issue for the purpose of s 35 Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2).
10/6/19
THE LIBYAN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY v JP MORGAN MARKETS LTD [2019] EWHC 1452
A conscious decision not to give the court certain information provided grounds on which to discharge an injunction [110] & [119].
6/6/19
IN THE MATTER OF SPRINTROOM LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 932
Considers principles to be applied in appeals where there is a challenge to an evaluative decision of the lower court [71]. The court must ask whether the decision of the judge was wrong by reason of some identifiable flaw in the judge's treatment of the question to be decided, "such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take account of some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion” [76].