May 2020
29/5/20
DEARING v SKELTON [2020] EWHC 1370 (Ch)
Considers the role of management during an administration [22]. On the facts administrators had been entitled to conclude that appointing new directors to resume control of management when the administration ended was not in accordance with the purpose of the administration. The evidence did not establish that new appointments were necessary to protect the company’s interests and value, but it would be necessary for the administrators to review the position in due course once the financial position was clearer.
29/5/20
IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS EUROPE LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2020] EWHC 1369 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application by former administrators to be discharged from liability under para 98(1) Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986.
29/5/20
MV PROMOTIONS LTD v TELEGRAPH MEDIA GROUP LTD [2020] EWHC 1357 (Ch)
Considers principles of contractual interpretation especially where there is uncertainty over the identity of a party [16-17], the correction of mistakes by construction [18] and rectification [34]. On the facts the court was satisfied that a rectifiable mistake had been made identifying the counter-party but in the exercise of the court’s discretion, the court declined to order rectification.
29/5/20
DE SENA v NOTARO [2020] EWHC 1379 (Ch)
As no application had been made by the time the court handed down judgment, for permission to appeal or for an adjournment or an extension of time to file any appellant's notice with the Court of Appeal, no further application could be made to the trial judge for permission to appeal.
29/5/20
DAYAH v THE PARTNERS OF BUSHLOE STREET SURGERY [2020] EWHC 1375 (QB)
Considers principles of frustration of contracts [50], [67]. On the facts the lower court had been right to hold that a contract had not been frustrated where the contract made provision for the relevant eventuality [80].
27/5/20
JQL v NTP [2020] EWHC 1349 (QB)
Considers claims for damages and an injunction for misuse of private information and breach of confidence in connection with a post on Facebook, including the extent of publication [102] and the threshold of seriousness [124]. Considers the element of intent [130], general principles relating to the misuse of private information [134], breach of confidence [149] and assessment of damages [153].
27/5/20
BOYSE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 1264 (Ch)
Considers the law relating to pleading deceit and fraud in a claim relating to LIBOR manipulation [35] and when the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud for the purpose of s 32(1) Limitation Act 1980 [38]. For that purpose there must have been something to put the claimant on notice [47]. Considers whether proceedings can be struck out where this is in issue, or whether summary judgment is appropriate [48]. It will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on a limitation point and preferably after the claimant has had an opportunity to plead its case [53]. On the facts the claim was time barred and an application for permission to amend was dismissed.
27/5/20
LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY v OKORO [2020] EWCA CIv 681
Practice Direction 51Z “Stay of Proceedings - Coronavirus” prevents enforcement of possession orders made under rules other than CPR Part 55 and imposes a stay on appeals in possession cases, except appeals to the Supreme Court [27].
26/5/20
RIDLEY v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PJSC [2020] EWHC 1213 (Comm)
Considers principles to be applied on applications to set aside an order granting permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR r 6.36 [60] and to serve by alternative means under CPR r 6.15 [89].
22/5/20
HART v LARGE [2020] EWHC 985 (TCC)
Considers a surveyor’s duty of care [125]. On the facts a surveyor instructed to provide a Home Buyer’s Report had not been under a duty to recommend a building survey [127]. The property had suffered significant damp. Although there had been no evidence of damp at the date of the surveyor’s inspection, the surveyor ought to have noticed the absence of any visible damp proof course and recommended further investigation [196]. He should also have recommended obtaining a professional consultant’s certificate [215]. Considers the assessment of damages where the property would not have been purchased but for the negligence survey [233]. Damages were to be assessed as the difference in value between the property with the defects as reported and its value with all the defects which in fact existed [254].
22/5/20
LES AMBASSADEURS CLUB LTD v ALBLUEWI [2020] EWHC 1313 (QB)
Considers relevant principles in considering real risk of dissipation [30] and the duty of full and frank disclosure [66]. There had been material non-disclosures sufficient to discharge a worldwide freezing order and to refuse to re-grant an order.
22/5/20
MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LTD v SINCLAIR [2020] EWHC 1249 (Comm)
The lower court had been right to refuse to make a final third party debt order (TPDO). Summaries principles for construction of contracts [20]. On its proper construction, a loan agreement made by deed required notice as a pre-condition to the obligation to repay. Until notice was served and had expired, there was no sum due or accruing due from the debtor. The making of an interim TPDO did not operate as notice. Cases which establish that demand is not a pre-condition to recover a debt due on demand had no application.
22/5/20
GERTNER v LASTER TRUST [2020] EWHC 1241 (Ch)
Considers the meaning of “financial accommodation” in s 8 Consumer Credit Act 1974 [59]. On the facts, a settlement agreement had not provided financial accommodation for the purpose of the CCA. Also considers the law on penalties [68].
22/5/20
FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD v CHICHESTER METALS PTY LTD [2020] EWHC 1304 (Ch)
Summarises principles to be applied in considering whether a duty of confidence exists in relation to information [39].
22/5/20
DSG RETAIL LTD v MASTERCARD INCORPORATED [2020] EWCA Civ 671
Considers the meaning of “reasonable diligence” for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1980 s 32 [27], [64]. On the facts, the question of whether or not the claimants had reason to investigate and whether they could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant concealment required disclosure and factual evidence to be fairly determined [70]. Also considers the meaning of “cause of action” [88].
21/5/20
C LTD v D [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for costs after a matter has been resolved by consent [48].
20/5/20
THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE v LITIGATION CAPITAL LTD [2020] EWHC 1280 (Comm)
Considers the power under CPR 19.8A to make orders barring claims of non-parties in respect of trust property [70], the circumstances in which orders can be made against persons unknown [74], and the availability of equivalent relief under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in support of claims by receivers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to realise property.
20/5/20
CPOD SA v DE HOLANDA JUNIOR [2020] EWHC 1247 (Ch)
Reviews principles on which the court can make orders after proceedings have been started for early disclosure of information by a defendant. Applications for disclosure of bank statements and for an interim order for an account, were dismissed. There was no need for early disclosure before particulars of claim had been served, nor was it just and convenient to do so.
19/5/20
STUBBINS MARKETING LTD v STUBBINS FOOD PARTNERSHIPS LTD [2020] EWHC 1266 (Ch)
Contains a useful summary of directors’ duties to act for proper purposes, promote the success of the company, skill and care, and to avoid conflicts of interest [349]. Considers the Duomatic principle by which shareholders may ratify a transaction [364] and when directors may be excused from liability under s 1157 Companies Act 2006. On the facts, various breaches of duty had been committed, including by directors who participated by authorising or receiving certain payments [563], by procuring the grant of a debenture [589], and by allowing work to be done to the directors’ homes [594].
19/5/20
ZENITH INSURANCE PLC v LPS SOLICITORS LTD [2020] EWHC 1260 (QB)
Considers pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16, Norwich Pharmacal principles and CPR r 31.18. The applications were dismissed because the evidence failed to explain why documents disclosed in response to an earlier application were inadequate, and to address basic requirements for relief.
19/5/20
SARA & HOSSEIN ASSET HOLDINGS LTD v BLACKS OUTDOOR RETAIL LTD [2020] EWHC 1263 (Ch)
A clause in a lease making the landlord's certificate conclusive as to “the amount of the total cost and the sum payable” by the tenant in respect of a service charge did not prevent the tenant from disputing whether the cost should have been incurred in the first place within the scope of the obligations of the lease [28].
18/5/20
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v LEAHY [2020] EWHC 1242 (QB)
The court was not persuaded to discharge a property freezing order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which covered a portfolio of properties, despite the fact that the defendant had offered to pay into court a sum calculated as the market value of the properties according to Red Book valuations. Taking all relevant factors into account, the court held the balance of convenience was in favour of continuing the order.
18/5/20
ADAMS v OPTIONS SIPP UK LLP [2020] EWHC 1229 (Ch)
The provider/administrator of self-invested pension plans which operated on an execution-only basis was not liable to the claimant investor for the losses claimed to have been suffered by entering into a manifestly unsuitable underlying investment within a SIPP "wrapper". Considers the scheme of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 [75] and the meaning of advising on and arranging investments [83]. On the facts, a mere introduction was insufficient to amount to arranging an investment [117]. Nor had advice been given by the introducer in respect of the SIPP [125]. Recommending the SIPP was insufficient [126]. There had been no breach of the requirement to act fairly in the client’s best interests (COBS r 2.1.1) because the defendant undertook no duty to advise and it was the underlying investments, not the SIPP, which had been unsuitable [157]. The defendant had not assisted in the commission of a tort by the introducer and was not therefore liable as a joint tortfeasor [169].
15/5/20
STANDING v POWER [2020] EWHC 1173 (Ch)
Reviews principles to be applied in considering whether to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages supporting the grant of an interim injunction [35]. The court must make “an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the loss”, the applicant must show a sufficient level of risk to require fortification (which is synonymous with showing a good arguable case to that effect) and only loss caused by the grant of the injunction is relevant. On the facts, the test had not been satisfied.
15/5/20
REES v 82 PORTLAND PLACE INVESTMENTS LLP [2020] EWHC 1177 (Ch)
The claimant’s claim to rectify the register had been correctly dismissed. There had been a mistaken failure by the Land Registry to enter a unilateral notice against the freehold title to protect the claimant’s claim to a lease extension, but mere failure to register the notice did not make it “unjust for the alteration not to be made” against the proprietor in possession of the freehold within Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 4, para 3(2)(b). This is a higher test than the exceptional circumstances test under para 3(3) and the fact that the claimant might have to pay £1.8m more to acquire a new lease as a result of the mistake did not make it unjust to refuse rectification.
15/5/20
ELU v FLOORWEALD LTD [2020] EWHC 1222 (QB)
The court struck out proceedings in which it was claimed that an earlier judgment had been obtained by fraud. The court reviewed the principles of res judicata and abuse of process [87] and the application of these principles where a judgment is alleged to have been obtained by fraud [105]. There must usually be fresh evidence which was not known at the time of trial [153]. There may be exceptional cases where the evidence of fraud is known but cannot be deployed [156] but here the facts were known at the time of the trial. The claim was barred by res judicata and was an abuse of process.
15/5/20
SHEIANOV v SARNER INTERNATIONAL LTD [2020] EWHC 1214 (QB)
Reviews case law on liens and concludes [80] that a particular lien (the right to retain property on which work has been done) can only operate on physical chattels, not ideas or intellectual property. Work must be done "on" the chattel being detained and not merely "with" it or "using" it or "in relation to" it. The work must improve or give additional value to the chattel. The improvement need not be physical, but it must be inherent to the chattel itself. If the agreed work is of a hybrid nature, some of which is apt to create a particular lien and some of which is not, and the work cannot be severed into those two constituent parts, no particular lien is created.
15/5/20
DAIICI CHUO KISEN KAISHA v CHUBB SEGUROS BRASIL SA [2020] EWHC 1223 (Comm)
Considers principles for grant of an anti-suit injunction and especially the impact of delay [49].
15/5/20
THE PUBLIC INSTITUTION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY v AMOUZEGAR [2020] EWHC 1220 (Comm)
Summarises principles to be applied on applications to extend time for service of a claim form under CPR 7.6(2) including where extending time may deprive the defendant of an arguable limitation defence [73].
15/5/20
BURFORD CAPITAL LTD v LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE GROUP PLC [2020] EWHC 1183 (Comm)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for production of documents under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, against a person mixed up in the wrongdoing of others. Such applications must be limited to seeking disclosure of strictly necessary information [23]. There must be a good arguable case of wrongdoing [33]. It is not necessary for the applicant to intend to sue the wrongdoer [34]. There is some doubt whether there must be an underlying cause of action against the wrongdoer [35]. Justice must require the defendant to provide assistance to the claimant [42]. Considers relevant factors [44]. On the facts there was no good arguable case of unlawful market manipulation so the claim failed.
15/5/20
CHRISTOFOROU v CHRISTOFOROU [2020] EWHC 1196 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on applications in advance of a trial to exclude evidence and limit cross-examination [41] - [59].
14/5/20
BARROWFEN PROPERTIES LTD v PATEL [2020] EWHC 1145 (Ch)
Summarises requirements for pleading fraud/dishonesty [7], dishonest assistance [8], deceit [9] and unlawful means conspiracy [10].
14/5/20
DHILLON v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2020] EWCA Civ 619
The claimant was a tenant of a house with a right to buy. As a result of a third party’s fraud the property had been transferred into the claimant’s name, then to a company and mortgaged it to the bank. The transfers were void for fraud. On dissolution of the company, the court had vested the property in the claimant subject to the bank’s charge. An application to rectify the register to remove the charge failed. The circumstances were exceptional to justify a refusal to alter the register because the claimant had not been the freehold owner but a tenant with a right to buy who would have had to raise money on mortgage to exercise the right. Rectification would create a windfall for the claimant. It was unnecessary to consider whether an indemnity would have been available to the bank if the register had been rectified.
14/5/20
KMG INTERNATIONAL NV v CHEN [2020] EWHC 1203 (Comm)
Summarises principles to be applied on application for permission to make late amendments.
13/5/20
TAYLOR WIMPEY UK LTD v HARRON HOMES LTD [2020] EWHC 1190 (TCC)
Considers principles to be applied on an application for pre-action disclosure under CPR r 31.16 [31].
13/5/20
GO CAPITAL LTD v PHULL [2020] EWHC 1235 (Ch)
Considers when a transaction is a sham [27]. On the facts the court was not satisfied there was a triable issue that a guarantee was a sham, but there were triable issues that the guarantor’s signature had been forged, the guarantee had not been executed as a deed and consideration had not been provided for it to operate as a contract.
12/5/20
KOZA v KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI AS [2020] EWHC 1092 (Ch)
Considers what order should be made as to costs when an applicant obtains an interlocutory injunction on the basis of balance of convenience [10]. On the facts the balance of convenience was significantly against the respondent and the court was likely to be better placed than another judge to decide the question of costs. The applicant was therefore entitled to the costs of the application which were to be borne by the second respondent alone as he was the “real master of the litigation” [27]. Payment on account of just over 50% was appropriate [45].
12/5/20
SAS INSTITUTE INC v WORLD PROGRAMMING LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 599
Considers principles applicable to anti-suit injunctions [90] and anti-enforcement injunctions [92]. Considers the importance of comity and delay [100]. An injunction should not have been granted to prevent an assignment of debts situated in the USA and there had been no good reason to restrain enforcement of a US judgment against those debts [120]. An injunction was justified in relation to debts situated in England [127].
11/5/20
ARKIN v MARSHALL [2020] EWCA CIv 620
The lower court had correctly decided that possession proceedings brought by receivers were stayed by Practice Direction 51Z. The court rejected a challenge to the Practice Direction as ultra vires and incompatible with rights of access to justice. If parties agree case management directions they can apply to have the directions embodied in an order [38]. The court has jurisdiction to lift the stay in a particular case, but only in the most exceptional circumstances [45]. Normal case management considerations would not suffice.
11/5/20
BRAKE v SWIFT [2020] EWHC 1156 (Ch)
Summarises the law on recusal for bias [13]. The test is whether all the circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the tribunal was biased [48]. On the facts, the test was not satisfied [76].
11/5/20
EUROPEAN FILM BONDS A/S v LOTUS HOLDINGS LLC [2020] EWHC 1115 (Ch)
Summarises principles for the interpretation of contracts [52], estoppel by convention [98] and penalty clauses [146]. A provision that delivery of a film was to be conclusively presumed in certain events of default was not a penalty 166].
11/5/20
IN THE MATTER OF TPS INVESTMENTS (UK) LTD [2020] EWHC 1135 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application to extend an administration.
11/5/20
ORAN ENVIRON MENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD v QBE INSURANCE (EUROPE) LTD [2020] EWHC 1271 (Comm)
The court interpreted a consent order allowing an extension of time to “serve” a claim form by a specific time and date as requiring the claim form to be served in the sense of taking the step required by CPR r 7.5 (in this case posting) rather than requiring it to be physically served on the defendants. Had physical service been required, the court would not have retrospectively extended time under CPR r 7.6 because it could not be said the claimant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with CPR r 7.5 but had been unable to do so.
7/5/20
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v DEVANI [2020] EWCA Civ 612
The slip rule can be used to correct a court order where the order in question does not express what the Court actually intended at the moment of promulgation. It cannot be used where the order does express what the Court intended at the time but it subsequently appreciates that it should have intended something different. The suggestion that the rule cannot be used if the correction would produce a decision with the opposite effect to that promulgated is wrong. In the case of a simple failure of expression – most obviously a straightforward slip of the pen – the error can and should be corrected even if it alters the outcome (as initially expressed) by 180° [23].
7/5/20
GREGORY v ARG (MANSFIELD) LTD [2020] EWHC 1133 (Ch)
In a case where a company is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, written consent to the appointment of an administrator must be obtained from the relevant regulator and lodged at the latest by (and with) filing of the notice of appointment [107]. If this is not done it is at least arguable that the appointment is a nullity [119]. Although the directors of the Company purportedly appointed administrators without FCA consent, consent was later obtained and it was appropriate to appoint the administrators with retrospective effect [121].
7/5/20
GLENCAIRN IP HOLDINGS LTD v PRODUCT SPECIALITIES INC [2020] EWCA Civ 609
Considers when a firm of solicitors can be restrained from acting for a defendant if the firm acted for another defendant against the same claimant in earlier litigation which settled. The general law on confidentiality applies so the burden is on the applicant to show that there is a real risk of prejudice to him from the other party's solicitor having had access to confidential or privileged information. In the usual case, the appropriate remedy is not an injunction to restrain the solicitor from acting but an injunction to restrain use of the confidential or privileged information [69]. The principles in Bolkiah v KPMG (1999) do not apply to reverse the burden of proof [80]. It is for the applicant to show sufficient risk of misuse and prejudice to justify an injunction.
7/5/20
SCHOOL FACILITY MANAGEMENT LTD v GOVERNING BODY OF CHRIST THE KING COLLEGE [2020] EWHC 1118 (Comm)
A hire agreement entered into by a council for the construction and hire of a modular building and equipment was properly characterised as a finance lease rather than an operating lease [250]. As a result it involved borrowing for which permission of the Secretary of State had not been obtained, so the transaction was ultra vires and void. Considers claims of unjust enrichment, including valuation of benefits conferred under the contract [425], recovery of money paid, and the defence of change of position [466].
6/5/20
365 BUSINESS FINANCE LTD v BELLAGIO HOSPITALITY WB LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 588
Where two or more writs of control to recover different judgment debts from the same debtor are directed to different enforcement officers, the first in time to be received by an enforcement officer has priority. Until goods are taken in execution, the debtor and anyone to whom the goods are transferred remains free to deal with them and a transferee in good faith, for valuable consideration and without notice of the writ, acquires the goods free from the writ [66]. Money obtained by an enforcement officer threatening to remove goods is just as much an exercise of the enforcement power conferred by the writ as the carrying out of such a threat by actually removing and selling the goods [100]. This applies whether payment is by cash, card payment or otherwise [113]. An enforcement officer is an officer of the court [122]. Attempting to enforce a writ knowing of another writ with priority, is inconsistent with the standards of conduct expected of officers of the court [131].
6/5/20
RE DEBENHAMS RETAIL LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 600
Summarises the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme [16]. Considers the effect of adoption of employment contracts by administrators [28] and the meaning of adoption [32]. Whether there has been adoption is a wholly objective question [53]. By paying sums to employees furloughed under the scheme, the administrators had adopted the contracts of those employees.
6/5/20
CENTENARY HOMES LTD v LIDDELL [2020] EWHC 1080 (QB)
Summarises duties owed by receivers to the mortgagor when selling mortgaged property [58] - [77]. The court rejected submissions that mere negligence is not sufficient to establish a breach of duty [63] and that receivers are under a duty only to sell so much of the charged property as is required to repay the mortgage [69]. The receivers had not been under a duty to make the properties more marketable by purchasing an indemnity policy in respect of lack of consent to change of use of part of the property [81]. Claims that the receivers had failed to maintain the properties were dismissed on the facts [85] - [115]. Claims that flats had been sold at an undervalue succeeded only to the extent that the value of a storage room had not been taken into account, which would have added £10,000 to the sale proceeds.
5/5/20
SANGHA v AMICUS FINANCE PLC [2020] EWHC 1074 (Ch)
A possession order made in favour of a mortgagee at a hearing attended by the mortgagor was a final order, not an interim order [28]. Considers the test for setting aside a final order [34]. To set aside a final order using the power under CPR r 3.1(7) exceptional circumstances are required [36]. If the defendant attended the possession hearing, CPR r 39.3(5) does not apply [44].
5/5/20
TIMES TRADING CORP v NATIONAL BANK OF FUJAIRAH (DUBAI BRANCH) [2020] EWHC 1078 (Comm)
Considers the test for the issue of an anti-suit injunction restraining foreign proceedings [38], specifically in a case where the proceedings were said to have been brought contrary to a London arbitration clause but the defendant denied the existence of the contract. An injunction was granted subject to a condition requiring the claimant to undertake not to rely on any time bar argument in the London arbitration [114].
5/5/20
QUANTUM ADVISORY LTD v QUANTUM ACTUARIAL LLP [2020] EWHC 1072 (Comm)
Considers whether a clause in a services agreement restraining the defendant from soliciting the claimant’s clients after termination of the agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade. The court examined the applicable principles [62] - [86]. On the facts, the doctrine did not apply because the agreement provided the opportunity for the defendant to trade rather than restraining an existing business [92]. In any event, the restraint was reasonable [95]. The court also considered principles to be applied in considering whether an agreement is void for uncertainty [122] and estoppel by convention [129]. On the facts, an introducer’s agreement was not void for uncertainty so sums paid under it were not repayable.
6/5/20
SUPER-MAX OFFSHORE HOLDINGS v MALHOTRA 2020] EWHC 1130 (Comm)
Considers guidance on applications for committal for contempt [6] - [7]. On the facts, a sentence of 15 months imprisonment was appropriate.
1/5/20
BORWICK DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS LTD v CLEAR WATER FISHERIES LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 578
A mortgage of land including fishing lakes which did not expressly create any charge on the fish in the lakes cannot have included any rights in respect of the fish in the lakes [52]. The fish were to be regarded as wild animals and any rights to them depended on ownership and control of the land [55]. Following a sale of the land by receivers appointed under the mortgage, the purchaser therefore became entitled to the fish, not the mortgagor. The mortgagor could have removed the fish before the sale, but his rights to do so came to one end on transfer of the land [59].
1/5/20
BERKELEY SQUARE HOLDINGS v LANCER PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD [2020] EWHC 1015 (CH)
Explains the without prejudice (WP) rule which renders evidence inadmissible [39], and the exceptions to it [43]. Under the misrepresentation/fraud exception [49], statements made in connection with a mediation could be relied on to rebut an allegation that a deed had been entered into as a result of misrepresentation [52]. An estoppel exception applies where reliance has been placed on a statement made in WP correspondence [55]. The so-called ‘Muller’ exception applies where a claim or issue is only fairly justiciable on proof of WP negotiations [63]. There might be a further exception for relying on WP communications to prove independent facts but this is not clearly established [93].
1/5/20
HRH THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD [2020] EWHC 1058 (Ch)
Allegations of dishonesty are irrelevant in claims for misuse of private information [45]. Explains the need to provide full particulars when pleading a claim of dishonesty [48] and for a party alleging misconduct to give particulars before obtaining disclosure [59]. Also holds that aggravated damages cannot be recovered for distress caused by conduct which is separate and distinct from that which is alleged to constitute the tort [77].
1/5/20
ROBINSON v H G ROBINSON & SONS LTD [2020] EWHC 1 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on an application to strike out a winding-up petition presented against a company on just and equitable grounds where the petitioner has unreasonably refused an offer to buy out the petitioner's shares in the company.
1/5/20
BROOMHEAD v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2020] EWHC 1005 (Ch)
Considers the test for pleading dishonesty [18] and the circumstances in which a judgment will be set aside on grounds that it was obtained by fraud [19]. Stresses the need to identify sources of information and belief in statements making serious allegations of dishonesty [32]. On the facts the claim was inadequately pleaded, bound to fail and the particulars of claim would be struck out but the claimant would be given an opportunity to re-plead its case and seek permission to amend.
1/5/20
MORGAN v EGAN [2020] EWHC 1025 (QB)
Considers principles to be applied on appeals against a refusal to adjourn a trial [25], and the approach to applications to adjourn on medical grounds [38]. The judge below had been wrong to refuse an adjournment without seeking or permitting the appellant to file further medical evidence.