31/10/18
FM CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD v MARINO [2018] EWHC 2889 (Comm); [2019] 1 WLR 1760
Assets covered by the standard form of freezing order include assets over which the respondent has control but which the respondent does not own (applying JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov, 2015). The fact that the respondent is sole shareholder/director of a company does not mean the respondent has control of the company’s assets for this purpose (applying Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su, 2015). Conduct which diminishes the value of the respondent’s shareholding is prohibited and there may be cases where the company’s assets are in truth the respondent’s assets, such as a non-trading companies with no active business which are no more than “pockets or wallets of the respondent.” Even if the order does not prohibit dealing with a company’s assets, it may require prior notice of dealings as they may affect the value of the respondent’s shareholding.
26/10/18
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PENSIONS TRUSTEES LTD v LLOYDS BANK PLC [2018] EWHC 2839 (Ch)
Claims for back-payments of under paid benefits from contracted-out defined benefit occupational pension schemes were trust claims under the Limitation Act 1980 s 21(1)(b) to which no limitation period applied [397-452].
22/10/18
W M MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC v VARIOUS CLAIMANTS [2018] EWCA Civ 2339
An employer was liable in damages to employees whose personal confidential information had been misused by being disclosed on the web by the criminal act of an employee (S) who had a grudge against the employer, where disclosure was in breach of statutory duty under s 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and in breach of confidence. The employer had no direct liability because only S had been the data controller in respect of the information, only S had disclosed and misused the information, and he had done so without the employer’s authority. But the DPA did not exclude the vicarious liability of an employer for misuse of private information or breach of confidence by an employee.
18/10/18
BARCLAYS BANK PLC v PRICE [2018] EWHC 2719 (Comm)
Although a guarantee included a principal debtor clause, on its proper interpretation a demand was required for the Bank to bring a claim under it. A demand was not invalid merely because it had been over-stated by £500.
12/10/18
HELLARD v GRAISELEY INVESTMENTS LTD [2018] EWHC 2664 (Ch)
In an application under s 238 Insolvency Act 1986 challenging a transaction as at an undervalue, liquidators should plead or define the transaction and address in their evidence the value alleged to flow between the parties to it. As this had not been done, the application did not get off the ground. Further, on the evidence the court was satisfied that there had been an error in the way a transfer of fixtures and fittings had been documented so the transfer had been void for mistake and a transfer back had caused nothing to be lost. The applicant liquidators had failed properly to analyse the relevant journal entries and should not have made allegations and insinuations going beyond the pleaded case.
5/10/18
DALAMD LTD v BUTTERWORTH SPENGLER COMMERCIAL LTD [2018] EWHC 2558 (Comm)
Considers duties owed by an insurance broker to a client [79] and the correct approach to causation of loss for the broker's negligence in arranging insurance [125]. The court needs to consider whether the policy is or is not voidable on a ‘yes/no’ basis [135] and whether there was a defence by reason of some other non-disclosure for which the brokers were not responsible [137].
2/10/18
CULLIFORD v THORPE [2018] EWHC 2532 (Ch)
The court has power to order payment on account of costs after a costs order has been made [14].