March 2015
31/3/15
MYERS v KESTREL ACQUISITIONS LTD [2015] EWHC 916 (Ch)
Noteholders claimed that amendments to loan notes had been made in breach of an implied term of good faith and an event of default had occurred because the issuer was insolvent. The court held on the facts that no such term could be implied but balance-sheet insolvency had been established and a declaration was granted to that effect.
31/3/15
HAYWARD v ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY PLC [2015] EWCA Civ 327
A claim by insurers to set aside a settlement agreement for fraudulent misrepresentation failed. Although the underlying claim which had been settled had been falsely exaggerated, the insurer had already known or perceived that to be the case at the time of the settlement. The fact that better evidence of the fraud only came to light after the settlement made no difference.
27/3/15
DUFFY v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH [2015] EWHC 867 (QB)
An application to adjourn a trial was allowed on grounds of unavailability of an important expert witness. But the court stressed that fixed trial dates are regarded as immovable save in the most exceptional and compelling circumstances [2].
26/3/15
SU-LING v GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL [2015] EWHC 757 (Comm)
Summarises principles to be applied to late applications to amend pleadings, especially where this would cause a trial date to be lost [38].
25/3/15
FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY v CAPITAL ALTERNATIVES LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 284
The judge below had been right to find that four schemes had been collective investment schemes within s 235 Financial Services & Markets Act 2000.
25/3/15
YXB v TNO [2015] EWHC 826 (QB)
Interim non-disclosure orders restraining publication of information discharged for material non-disclosure.
24/3/15
MAURI GARMENTS TRADING & MARKETING LTD v MAURITIUS COMMERCIAL BANK LTD [2015] UKPC 14
By separate contracts, the claimant agreed to supply raw materials to, and to buy shirts from, a supplier. The contract for the supply of shirts required the claimant to provide a first demand bank guarantee for monies due but not paid to the supplier. The defendant bank called on the guarantee and was paid. The claimant claimed the demand had, to the knowledge of the defendant bank, been inflated by failing to take into account monies due for raw materials supplied by the claimant. A claim in tort by the claimant against the defendant bank was dismissed. No duty in tort was owed to the claimant by the defendant bank. Any cross-claim which the claimant had for payment for raw materials was under a separate contract and irrelevant to any claim for payment under the guarantee.
24/3/15
CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATION & INVESTMENT BANK v PAPADIMITRIOU [2015] UKPC 13
The true owner of goods claimed to trace their proceeds of sale through companies in Panama and Lichtenstein to the bank. The bank’s defence was that it was a bona fide purchaser for value of the proceeds which had been deposited with the bank and subsequently dissipated. The issue was whether the bank had constructive notice of the claimant’s proprietary rights because it failed to make inquiries which would have revealed their existence. Mere notice of a claim is not sufficient. But a bank must make inquiries if there is a serious possibility of a third party having a proprietary right or if the facts known to the bank would give a reasonable banker in the position of the particular banker serious cause to question the propriety of the transaction. If unexplained features of a transaction are indicative of wrongdoing, an explanation must be sought. If the bank had given adequate consideration to the commercial purpose of the transaction, it would have concluded that the inter-position of companies in Panama and Lichtenstein had been to conceal the origin of the funds and for the improper purpose of money laundering. The bank was therefore fixed with notice.
23/3/15
BOREH v REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI [2015] EWHC 769 (Comm)
Freezing injunctions were discharged on grounds that the applicant had deliberately misled the court. Proprietary injunctions were allowed to remain in place.
20/3/15
SOCIETY OF LLOYDS v NOEL [2015] EWHC 734 (QB)
Extended civil restraint order made.
18/3/15
SPAR SHIPPING AS v GRAND CHINA LOGISTICS HOLDING (GROUP) LTD [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm)
The court explained why no weight was to be given to the witness statement of a witness who was available to be called [79]. The court considered applicable principles of ratification [88], whether a term is a condition of a contract [92], when time is of the essence [154], and when conduct amounts to a repudiation [208]. On the facts, payment of hire under a charter party had not been a condition and there had been a repudiation by the hirer.
18/3/15
ALLIANCE BANK JSC v ZHUNUS [2015] EWHC 714 (Comm)
Freezing order discharged for material non-disclosure. Principles summarised [66].
12/3/15
RTA (BUSINESS CONSULTANTS) LTD v BRACEWELL [2015] EWHC 630 (QB)
A contract made by an unregistered estate agent was unenforceable on grounds of illegality. Principles of illegality for breach of a statute considered [36].
11/3/15
CARLYLE v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2015] UKSC 13
The Scots appeal court had been wrong to reverse the judgment of the trial judge which turned on factual findings that an oral agreement had been made by which the bank agreed to finance not only the purchase price of land but also the costs of developing it. The undisputed evidence was that the customer had asked the bank not to give him the money for the land unless it also gave him the money to build and the bank had subsequently told him “it’s all approved”. Although it would have been open to the trial judge to conclude this was only a decision in principle, he did not have to. Based on Scots authority, the fact that parties envisage that their agreement will be set out in a formal contract does not by itself prevent their agreement having legal effect until then. Subsequently signed facility letters only superseded the agreement so far as concerned the terms of the loan for the purchase.
11/3/15
McWILLIAM v NORTON FINANCE (UK) LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 186
A credit-broker had acted in breach of fiduciary duty in a loan transaction in which the existence of some but not all commission had been disclosed to the borrowers. It did not matter whether the broker was acting in an advisory or non-advisory capacity. The court below had been wrong to allow the broker to withdraw an admission that it had received the additional undisclosed commissions.
10/3/15
AMERICAN LEISURE GROUP LTD v OLSWANG [2015] EWHC 629 (Ch)
The court below had been entitled to refused permission to the claimant to amend the name of the defendant.
10/3/15
PUI-KWAN v KAM-HO [2015] EWHC 621 (Ch)
A meeting of directors at which it had been resolved to place a company into administration had been inquorate and as a result the company had not validly entered into administration.
4/3/15
SEA SHEPHERD UK v FISH & FISH LTD [2015] UKSC 10
Joint liability in tort can arise where a defendant assisted the principal tortfeasor in the commission of tortious acts. For this it must be proved that the defendant acted in a way which furthered the commission of the tort by the principal, that the defendant did so in pursuance of a common design with that person, and the defendant did or secured the doing of the acts which had constituted a tort. The accessory is liable for the tortious act of the principal because the law treats him as a party to it. The accessory does not need to have joined in doing the very act that constituted the tort. On the facts a majority of the court held that the judge at first instance had been entitled to find that the acts of the defendants played no effective part in the commission of the tort (conduct causing damage to a fishing vessel).
2/3/15
RANDHAWA v TURPIN (RE BW ESTATES LTD) [2015] EWHC 517 (Ch)
Administrators appointed by a director by the out of court procedure had not acted improperly in accepting the appointment and were not to be deprived of remuneration on that basis. Issues as to the level of their remuneration would be the subject of a further hearing at which the costs of the application would be determined.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer