30/3/20
ANWER v CENTRAL BRIDGING LOANS LTD [2020] EWHC 765 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for permission to bring proceedings to commit for contempt under CPR Part 81 on grounds of making a false statement of truth and interfering in the administration of justice [30].
27/3/20
With effect from 27/3/20 all possession proceedings under CPR Part 55 and proceedings to enforce orders for possession are stayed for 90 days. Applications for injunctions are excepted.
26/3/20
JC v KREISSPARKASSE SAARLOUIS [2020] C-66/19
Article 10 of EU Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers does not allow a statement of the period for exercising a right to withdraw from a credit agreement to be defined by mere cross-reference to provisions contained in other legislation or regulations. The agreement must inform the consumer of the content of those other provisions to which cross-reference is made.
20/3/20
MORTGAGES AND CORONAVIRUS: FCA GUIDANCE
Customers experiencing payment difficulties are generally to be granted a 3 month payment holiday without any adverse impact on their credit file. Firms should not commence or continue repossession proceedings “at this time”. The guidance is to be reviewed after 3 months.
20/3/20
CANADA SQUARE OPERATIONS LTD v POTTER [2020] EWHC 672 (QB)
A lender’s failure to disclose in 2006 a commission in connection with a PPI policy had been unfair and amounted to wrongdoing within the unfair relationship provisions of CCA 1974 ss 140A-D. The lender was to be taken to have deliberately concealed the wrongdoing for the purpose of s 32 Limitation Act 1980 so that time did not run for the borrower to bring a claim to recover the premium until the borrower discovered the commission payment in November 2016.
20/3/20
QATAR NATIONAL BANK (QPSC) v OWNERS OF THE YACHT FORCE INDIA [2020] EWHC 719 (Admlty)
Exceptionally an order for sale of a mortgaged ship was set aside on payment of the sum secured by an independent third party.
19/3/20
LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC v EUROPEAN SKYJETS LTD [2020] EWHC 679 (QB)
When the claimant demanded repayment of a loan it had wrongly believed there were arrears of $300k when the arrears were only $179.99. The court allowed an appeal against a refusal to set aside a default judgment. It was arguable with a real prospect of success that the arrears had been de minimis [45], that the claimant had a duty to state the debt with reasonable accuracy [47], or that there was an estoppel preventing the claimant relying on the lower sum as a default [48]. Discusses arguments that the contract contained penalties or that the defendant could seek relief from forfeiture [50] [57]. The fact that the arrears were so small also meant there was “some other” reason to set aside the judgment. Considers the impact of delay in applying to set aside the judgment [106] and considerations common to set aside and summary judgment applications [120].
19/3/20
PROMONTORIA (OAK) LTD v EMANUEL [2020] EWHC 563 (Ch)
Although an assignee had been held not to have been entitled to rely on an assignment to prove its title to sue the debtors, it had brought its claim both as assignee and as proprietor of a legal charge and was entitled to succeed on its claim for a money judgment and for possession under the legal charge. The legal charge contained an obligation to repay the money secured by the charge and conferred the right to possession. The fact that a claim based on the assignment had failed was irrelevant.
19/3/20
POPELY v POPELY [2020] EWHC 667 (Ch)
Reviews principles on which costs can be ordered against non-parties [5].
18/3/20
INFEDERATION LTD v GOOGLE LLC [2020] EWHC 657 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied when a confidentiality ring is established to limit access to disclosed documents [27].
18/3/20
BANK ST PETERSBURG PJSC v ARKANGELSKY [2020] EWCA Civ 408
Reviews principles on which an appellate court can interfere with findings of fact made by a trial judge [30] and the standard of proof required in respect of allegations of dishonesty [44]. In an unusual case in which both parties had behaved dishonestly, the trial judge had applied too high a standard of proof. He ought to have asked what explanation was more probable than not, having taken account of the nature and gravity of the allegation [51] [117]. He should also have stood back and considered the effects and implications of the facts he had found taken in the round [59]. A 22 month delay in writing the judgment had been inexcusable. The unwritten rule is that judgments should be delivered within 3 months [78] but the delay was not of itself a reason to allow the appeal. Also considers principles on which a claim can be barred by illegality [87], and the impact of ‘inequality of arms’ at trial [94].
16/3/20
GRIFFITHS v LIBERTY SYNDICATE 4472 [2020] EWHC 948 (TCC)
Proceedings to recover under a buildings insurance policy were struck out as time-barred. The policy was a form of indemnity insurance. Time for bringing the claim started to run immediately a loss was suffered caused by the event insured against [14]. The court rejected an argument that time only started running when the insured incurred costs rectifying the defects [15].
13/3/20
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v TECHTREK INDIA LTD [2020] EWHC 539 (Ch)
Where the maker of a statement is relying on evidence provided by a witness who is an officer of, or employed by, an incorporated body, the requirements of paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 32 to provide the source of evidence is not complied with merely by saying that the source is the entity or officers of the entity. If the source of evidence is a person, as opposed the source being documents, the person or persons must be identified and named. A failure to identify the source in a manner that complies with paragraph 18.2 will mean the court has to consider whether to place any weight on the evidence, especially where it touches on a central issue [20]. On the facts, evidence that the third defendant had signed a guarantee and that the form of the guarantee had been agreed by the principal debtor was inadequate and the bank’s application for summary judgement was refused.
11/3/20
UK LEARNING ACADEMY LTD v SECRETARY OF STATE [2020] EWCA Civ 370
Considers when an appeal court will allow a new case on appeal [40].
11/3/20
DAWSON-DAMER v TAYLOR WESSING LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 352
Considers principles of joint privilege [26]. Whether joint privilege exists between trustee and beneficiary is a matter of procedural law, not substantive trust law [43] [47]. On the facts, joint privilege existed [53]. Also considers whether paper files are a relevant filing system within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 [55]. The approach in Durant v Financial Services Authority (2003) to the meaning of relevant filing system is not compatible with later EU case-law. There are 4 questions to ask. First, are the files a "structured set of personal data"? Secondly, are the data accessible according to specific criteria? Thirdly, are those criteria "related to individuals"? Fourthly, do the specific criteria enable the data to be easily (or "readily" as the 1998 Act puts it) retrieved? [90]. If accessing the data requires the use of trainees and skilled lawyers, turning the pages of the files and reviewing the material identified, that is a clear indication that the structure itself does not enable ready access to the data [99].
10/3/20
BILTA (UK) LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch)
Contains useful summaries of the principles of dishonest assistance [159], fraudulent trading [175], vicarious liability for the acts of employees [193], attribution of knowledge to companies [217], and the test of dishonesty [225]. In the context of claims that traders participated in the commission of missing trader intra-community VAT fraud, in order to prove dishonesty the claimants had to show that the traders had a suspicion, based upon some identifiable matters, that the trading that they were doing was part of, or connected in some way, with VAT fraud [235]. On the facts, the test was satisfied and the defendants were liable for dishonest assistance and knowingly being a party to fraudulent trading by the claimant companies.
10/3/20
Parties filing appellants' notices should clearly identify any challenges to the lower court's findings of fact in their grounds of appeal and squarely address those challenges in their skeleton arguments, so as to ensure that (i) the judge considering the application for permission to appeal appreciates that such a challenge is being mounted and can decide whether or not to grant permission for it and (ii) if permission is granted, the members of the Court hearing the appeal can prepare accordingly [63].
10/3/20
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v MGN LTD [2020] EWHC 553 (Ch)
Considers the court’s power to strike out on grounds of proportionality [31].
5/3/20
CANADA GOOSE RETAIL LTD v PERSONS UNKNOWN [2020] EWCA Civ 303
Considers when proceedings for interim and final relief can properly be brought and served on persons unknown.
5/3/20
The insured did not have to show a genuine, fixed and settled intention to reinstate a property to recover the cost of reinstatement under a building insurance policy.
3/3/20
ADDLESEE v DENTONS EUROPE LLP [2020] EWHC 238 (Ch)
Summarises principles to be applied on applications for disclosure of documents which would otherwise be privileged where it is claimed that privilege is lost under the so-called fraud exception [28], including the standard of proof [37] requiring the court to be satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case.