October 2013
31/10/13
HAMSARD 3147 LTD v BOOTS LTD [2013] EWHC 3251 (Pat)
Considers principles to be applied in
determining what was a reasonable period of notice to determine a supply
agreement and whether any term as to good faith was to be implied.
30/10/13
GAMATRONIC (UK) LTD v HAMILTON [2013] EWHC 3287 (QB)
Contains guidance on drafting statements of
case. They must be sufficiently accurate to identify the issues: parties
should not have to dig behind a pleading to detect what is alleged [26].
Headings must be neutral and mere background should not be pleaded.
Allegations, especially of dishonesty, should be properly particularIsed.
25/10/13
AGEAS (UK) LTD v KWIK-FIT (GB) LTD [2013] EWHC 3261 (QB)
A reference to service of proceedings in a
contract did not incorporate by reference the CPR provisions as to service but
meant that the proceedings had to be brought to the defendant’s actual
attention.
25/10/13
CLOSEGATE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT (DURHAM) LTD V MCLEAN [2013] EWHC 3237 (Ch)
Directors have authority to cause a company to
apply to challenge an administrator’s appointment and do not necessarily have
to offer to indemnify the company in respect of the costs. On the facts
the challenge failed as the lender which appointed the administrators was not
estopped from appointing.
25/10/13
SHARMA v SHARMA [2013] EWCA Civ 1287
Reviews principles on which directors may be
in breach of fiduciary duty in diverting business for personal gain. On the facts the shareholders had consented
to and acquiesced in the director personally exploiting the opportunity so the
claim failed.
23/10/13
ALPHASTEEL LTD v SHIRKHANI [2013] EWCA Civ 1272
Permission should not have been given for
disclosed documents to be used in later proceedings. Settlement of the
earlier claim prevented the use of the documents in later proceedings.
21/10/13
BEHAGUE v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 596 (TC)
A solicitor’s retainer letter is not
inherently privileged.
18/10/13
MADOFF SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v RAVEN [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm)
Considers directors’ duties to act with care and skill and for proper
purposes, liability for unlawful capital distribution, the defence to claims of
breach based on the Duomatic principle, statutory relief from liability, and
the elements for liability for dishonest assistance of a breach of trust or
unjust enrichment.
17/10/13
SHEARER v SPRING CAPITAL LTD [2013] EWHC 3148 (Ch)
The court refused to strike out a redemption
action relating to loans made by the defendant to companies whose liabilities
had been guaranteed by the claimant. Issues which merited more detailed
consideration at trial included whether tender of payment needed to cover
costs, whether tender could be made on condition that a new lender would step
into existing security, whether the tender could be and had been conditional on
execution of specified release documents, and whether a re-tender was necessary
after the expiry of the time specified for signing the documents.
16/10/13
FORSTA AP-FONDEN v BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON SA/NV [2013] EWHC 3127 (Comm)
The claimant pension fund succeeded in claiming damages for losses on an
investment in certain medium term notes made on its behalf by the defendant
investment fund manager. The defendant’s
role was as a discretionary fund manager, not an adviser, and it was not
required to keep the claimant fully informed.
Nor were the defendant’s duties properly classified as fiduciary. The defendant had not acted in breach of duty
in acquiring and retaining the notes.
But in communicating with the claimant the defendant had to give a fair
view of the risk of default and loss.
The defendant had been negligent and breached that duty because it had
told the claimant that it remained confident that the issuer of the notes would
pay in full when its analysis at that time was that there was a significant
likelihood of default. The judgment
contains a useful description of securities lending [36], and the circumstances
in which fiduciary duties may be owed [172].
15/10/13
PLANTATION HOLDINGS (FZ) LLC v DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PJSC [2013] EWCA Civ 1229
The court below had rightly refused to join
two actions where the trial of the first action would have been delayed as a
result.
11/10/13
INVIDEOUS LTD v THOROGOOD [2013] EWHC 3015 (Ch)
A director/shareholder was in breach of duty
in setting up and working for another company and pursuing business
opportunities through that company. The director’s duties of fidelity as
an employee are summarised at [45], his duties as a director at [76] and the
principles applicable to misuse of business opportunities at [77].
11/10/13
MATHIESON v CLINTONS [2013] EWHC 3056 (Ch)
Solicitors had been negligent in failing to
explain the operation of a provision in a shareholder agreement to its client,
but a claim that the firm had concealed relevant facts from the client failed and
the claim was time-barred.
11/10/13
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts
(Interest) Act 1998 applies to claims in debt, not damages but a debt
arises on a claim for damages for breach of contract when judgment is given.
11/10/13
DOOSAN BABCOCK LTD v COMERCIALIZADORA DE EQUIPOS Y MATERIALES MABE LIMITADA [2013] EWHC 3010 (TCC)
Considers the threshold test for granting
interim injunctive relief in relation to bonds/guarantees [39].
10/10/13
BIFFA WASTE SERVICES LTD v DINLER (QB)
A judge had been wrong to give a personal
injury claimant relief from the sanction of striking out for non-compliance
with an unless order. The claimant had
failed to explain numerous failures, including late service of witness
statements, late payment of court fees and late service of the trial bundle
which had caused the trial to be adjourned.
The defendant’s appeal was allowed and the claim stood struck out.
9/10/13
GREEN v ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC [2013] EWCA Civ 1197
When selling an interest rate swap the bank had a statutory duty under the FSA Handbook Conduct of Business Rules to take reasonable steps to ensure that the customers understood the risks involved. But a claim for breach of statutory duty was admitted to be time-bared and no concurrent duty existed at common law because the bank had not crossed the line between providing information and giving advice.
3/10/13
Having held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration of its entitlement under the doctrine of marshalling to the benefit of charges held by the bank on assets of associated companies which the bank had not enforced, the judge below had been wrong to hold that the claimants could not exercise those rights until the bank had been paid in full. There was no reason to deny the claimant the right to realise the securities immediately.
2/10/13
CREDIT SUISSE AG v ARABIAN AIRCRAFT & EQUIPMENT LEASING CO EC [2013] EWCA Civ 1169
Where an aircraft leasing agreement provided alternative and inconsistent bases for the calculation of damages for breach, the claimant could not obtain summary judgment on the basis of a calculation on which it had not pleaded reliance. Particulars of claim should identify with care and precision the case the claimant is putting forward [17].
© Copyright 2013 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer