28/3/24
CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE v WRIGHT [2024] EWHC 743 (Ch)
Considers principles for the grant of a worldwide freezing injunction, including whether a good arguable case to recover a prospective costs order was sufficient [24], risk of dissipation [28], and the adequacy of fortification for the applicant’s cross-undertaking in damages [44].
28/3/24
ONE SAVINGS BANK PLC v WALLER-EDWARDS [2024] EWCA Civ 302
A mortgage had been obtained in joint names partly for joint non-commercial purposes and partly for the benefit of only one of the borrowers. A claim to set aside the mortgage on grounds that the bank was put on inquiry of undue influence by one party over the other was rejected. On the facts the only matter that might have put the bank on inquiry was the fact that of the £384,000 loaned, £40,000 was to be used to pay off the sole debts of one borrower. In assessing whether a loan is for the purposes of one borrower as distinct from joint purposes, it is right to look at the transaction as a whole and to decide the question as a matter of fact and degree. Looked at as a whole and from the point of view of what the bank knew, this was a case of joint borrowing for joint purposes.
28/3/24
BINYON v SUZERAIN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD [2024] EWHC 749 (Ch)
A debenture was void against administrators because it had not been duly registered at the Companies Registry. Considers cases on the conclusiveness of a certificate of registration. The certificate of registration of the debenture was held not to be conclusive because it did not refer to the date of creation of the debenture but to a later amendment agreement which did not create any charge but purported to extend the terms of the debenture.
28/3/24
KENDALL v BALL [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch)
A joint declaration of trust of land in the names of the respondents was not conclusive in a claim by administrators of the applicant company for a declaration that the land was held by the respondents on resulting or constructive trust for the company. The court considered principles for establishing a resulting trust [37] but rejected the claim made on that basis. The court also considered principles on which directors are liable as constructive trustees if they acquire property in breach of duty [53]. On the facts, the claim that the land was held on constructive trust succeeded.
26/3/24
EXPERT TOOLING AND AUTOMATION LTD v ENGIE POWER LTD [2024] EWHC 374 (Ch)
A principal's claim to recover commission received by an agent failed. The claim was time-barred whether in contract, tort, or in equity by analogy under s.36 Limitation Act 1980. The primary limitation period was not extended under s.32(1)(b) because the fact that commission would be paid by a third party was known and the amount could have been discovered with reasonable diligence simply by asking. Further, although the agent had been a fiduciary, having regard to the business context, the scope of the fiduciary duty did not require the agent to advise the principal of the amount of the commission in the absence of a request for that information, the principal was regarded as having given informed consent to the payment of commission, and the case did not involve dishonesty to establish accessory liability.
27/3/24
HAYES v R [2024] EWCA Crim 304
Appeals against convictions for dishonest manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR were upheld. The relevant codes for fixing LIBOR and EURIBOR did not allow an individual bank to make a range of submissions and to have regard to its own commercial advantage, but required submission of a single figure representing what the bank honestly and genuinely understood was the cheapest rate at which it could borrow on the inter-bank market at the relevant time.
25/3/24
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG [2024] EWHC 695 (KB)
Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR r.31.22 to restrain collateral use of documents disclosed in proceedings. On the facts the application based on commercial sensitivity was not sufficiently focussed and was rejected. The court also considered an application for disclosure of the claimants’ funding arrangements [34] but decided that the application should be revisited after exchange of costs budgets and other information.
22/3/24
BRATT v JONES [2024] EWHC 631 (Ch)
Summarises how the court should determine whether a valuation is negligent, having regard to the acceptable margin for error [165]. On the facts, a valuation within 14.15% of the correct value was within an acceptable margin for error and not negligent.
20/3/24
NAVIGATOR EQUITIES LTD v DERIPASKA [2024] EWCA Civ 268
Contains a useful summary of the law of contempt [47]. On the facts, the judge had been entitled to conclude that a case of contempt had been proved to the criminal standard. The use of inappropriate or flamboyant language in an affidavit did not justify an award of costs on the indemnity basis [83].
19/3/24
SMIT SALVAGE BV v LUSTER MARITIME SA [2024] EWCA Civ 260
In deciding whether parties concluded a legally binding contract, the whole course of their negotiations must be considered. It is possible to conclude a binding contract even though it is understood or agreed that a formal document will follow which may include terms which have not yet been agreed. Whether this is what the parties intend to do must be determined by an objective appraisal of their words and conduct. On the facts, the claimants had not demonstrated that the parties’ exchanges evinced unequivocally an intention to be bound.
19/3/24
FAROL HOLDINGS LTD v CLYDESDALE BANK PLC [2024] EWHC 593 (Ch)
The court dismissed claims relating to so-called tailored business loans. Under the loans the lender hedged its interest rate risk in the market and the customers’ interest liabilities were capped at fixed rates but increased if market rates fell. The customers were liable for break costs incurred by the lender when the loans and hedges terminated. Claims that the lender had no liability to pay break costs were rejected and the lender’s terms were held to have entitled it to recover loss arising from break costs. The court summarised principles of deceit and misrepresentation [206] but found that none of the representations about break costs were false and allegations of deceit were not made out. Claims that the lender misrepresented that its profit was limited to the interest rate margin also failed because a reasonable person in the position of the customers would not have understood any such representation was being made. Although the primary limitation periods for the claims had expired, the limitation periods for a number of the claims would have been extended under s.14A and/or s.32 Limitation Act 1980 by reason of the customers’ lack of knowledge. The court also reviewed principles for finding an unfair relationship [751] but rejected the claim made on this basis.
15/3/24
KUMAR v LSC FINANCE LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 254
Although a loan agreement had not contained a sufficient declaration to give rise to a presumption that the loan fell outside the scope of FCA regulation, the declaration taken with other evidence had been sufficient to establish that the loan had been made for business purposes and had not been to provide the borrowers with a dwelling, so the agreement was an investment property loan and not a regulated mortgage contract.
15/3/24
AHMET v TATUM [2024] EWCA Civ 255
There is no rule barring a third party from seeking to have the ownership of property relevant to confiscation proceedings determined by a civil court, even where the issue is between the third party and the prosecutor. POCA does not lay down an exhaustive code for the resolution of such disputes but empowers a civil court to stay or to "allow … to continue on any terms it thinks fit" a claim relating to a property in respect of which a restraint order or an order appointing an enforcement receiver has been applied for or made.
14/3/24
CCP GRADUATE SCHOOL LTD v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2024] EWHC 581 (KB)
A claim by a victim of authorised push payment (APP) fraud against the account holding/paying bank for breach of the so-called Quincecare duty was summarily dismissed because over 6 years had elapsed since the payment was made when the claim was started. The claimant could not rely on extension of time under s.32(1)(c) Limitation Act 1980 because mistake is not an ingredient of a claim for breach of the Quincecare duty. In any event, following Philipp v Barclays, 2023, the alleged breach of a duty was not sustainable in law. An amendment to claim breach of a duty by the paying bank to recover the sums paid was a new claim which did not arise out of the pleaded facts and could not be permitted. A claim against the recipient bank for failure to retrieve the money after notice of the fraud was within the limitation period so far as concerned payments made on one day and that claim could not be struck out as unsustainable in law.
14/3/24
DEUTSCHE BANK AG v SEBASTIAN HOLDINGS INC [2024] EWCA Civ 245
Considers the meaning of the words “arrears of interest” in s.24(2) Limitation Act 1980. Summarises principles of statutory interpretation [11] and considers the meaning of the word “due” [13] and “arrears” [18]. Considers the policy behind the Limitation Act [44]. Concludes that in s.24(2) (which applies a 6 year limitation period to recover arrears of interest on a judgment from the date on which the interest became due), “due” means payable. Time does not, therefore, start running for recovery of interest on an award of costs until the costs have been assessed so the interest is payable. The judge below had been wrong to hold that time starts running when a costs order is made.
13/3/24
PIEPENBROCK v MICHELL [2024] EWHC 544 (KB)
After striking out a claim as totally without merit, the court summarised principles to be applied in considering whether to make an extended civil restraint order [111].
13/3/24
KIREEVA v ZOLOTOVA [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)
Considers when a court may refuse declaratory relief in the exercise of its discretion [66] - [74]. Also considers principles of maintenance and champerty [100] - [117].
8/3/24
BRENDON INTERNATIONAL LTD v WATER PLUS LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 220
Explains the distinction between the legal and evidential burden of proof [50]. In a claim for recovery of money paid by mistake, the legal burden of proof is on the claimant. The judge had wrongly confused the two and wrongly applied a presumption. The appeal court explained when a person may be regarded as qualified to give expert evidence [75] and when a witness can give evidence of fact and opinion [86]. The judge had failed to give sufficient reasons for refusing to treat a witness as an expert. The court also considered what reasonable diligence means in the context of Limitation Act 1980, s.32 [94]. The judge had not asked the right question, which involves asking what the actual claimant could have learned not just what they did learn.
8/3/24
HILL v TOUCHLIGHT GENETICS LTD [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat)
Considers when the court should appoint a scientific adviser without expert evidence.
7/3/24
PATEL v AWAN [2024] EWHC 464 (Ch)
An interim payment on account of costs is enforceable as a judgment debt in the same way as any other court order for a money sum, including by charging order. An order for sale was appropriate to enforce a charging order where there was little or no equity, but on the facts the debtor would be allowed 3 months for payment and/or possession.
6/3/24
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV v AMAZON UK SERVICES LTD [2024] UKSC 8
Contains a useful summary at [46] - [51] of the correct approach of an appeal court to an appeal against an evaluative decision of a trial judge. On the facts, the Court of Appeal had been right to decide that the trial judge made errors in the way he arrived at his evaluative conclusion and got the answer wrong.
6/3/24
PERHAR v FREESTONE [2024] EWHC 945 (Ch)
The judge below had been wrong to determine on a summary basis the question whether a debenture had been enforceable and that administrators had been properly appointed under it. There were disputed factual issues, including whether the creditor had waived any breach. The debenture did not include any express term as to when the floating charge within it became enforceable and the appeal court did not consider it appropriate to decide on a summary basis the nature of any implied term because this could be fact dependent and might turn on findings made at a trial. The fact that the debenture provided for payment on demand was not sufficient because a term as to reasonable notice might be implied for enforcement of the floating charge.
5/3/24
ISBILEN v TURK [2024] EWHC 505 (Ch)
Summarises legal principles governing contempt applications [22]. On the facts, various breaches of a court order were held to have been established.
1/3/24
PARKER-GRENNAN v CAMELOT UK LOTTERIES LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 185
Considers principles for the incorporation of contract terms when a consumer deals with an online trader and accepts terms and conditions by ticking a box and clicking to confirm (so-called click-wrap). None of the terms were of such an unusual nature as to require sign-posting and the judge had been entitled to find that the defendant had done enough to draw the terms and conditions to the claimant’s notice.