30/10/19
SINGULARIS HOLDINGS LTD v DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS EUROPE LTD [2019] UKSC 50
The defendant broker acted in breach of its duty of care (established in Barclays Bank v Quincecare, 1992) by allowing a director who was the claimant’s sole shareholder, to transfer some $204m from a client account held for the claimant by the defendant when the defendant had been put on inquiry that the director was acting fraudulently. The trial judge had been right to hold that the director’s knowledge was not to be attributed to the claimant, that illegality was not a defence to the claim and that the compensation to which the company was entitled should be discounted by 25% for contributory negligence.
28/10/19
SL CLAIMANTS v TESCO PLC [2019] EWHC 2858 (Ch)
The claimants had a sufficient interest in shares held in dematerialised form through the CREST system to bring claims against a company to recover losses in respect of decisions to invest in the company's shares in reliance on information published by the company which was alleged to have been untrue or misleading.
28/10/19
UK TRUCKS CLAIM LTD v FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES NV [2019] CAT 26
Litigation funders engaged in the funding of a claim were not engaged in providing “claims management services” so the funding agreements were not damages-based agreements within s.58AA(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and were not unenforceable on that basis.
23/10/19
FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY v AVACADE LTD [2019] EWHC 2779 (Ch)
An application made after 1 January 2019 in the Business and Property Courts to enforce compliance with a pre-existing order for disclosure should be decided in the light of the culture change made by the pilot scheme for disclosure in CPR PD51U. On the facts all but two of the factors listed in paragraph 6.4 of PD51U were not met, so the application failed.
19/10/19
KOGAN v MARTIN [2019] EWCA Civ 1645
Observations in Gestmin v Credit Suisse (2013) on reliability of witness evidence are not to be taken as laying down general principles [88]. The fallibility of memory does not relieve judges of the task of making findings of fact based upon all of the evidence. Where a party's sworn evidence is disbelieved, the court must say why that is and cannot simply ignore the evidence. Gestmin was addressed to commercial cases, in which there may be abundant documentation. In a case involving discussion between private individuals living together it is inherently improbable that details of all their interactions would be fully recorded in documents.
17/10/19
Outlines matters to be taken into account in considering whether proceedings have been started within a reasonable time for the purpose of s 42(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
8/10/19
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA [2019] EWCA Civ 1641
The court refused an application by the bank for summary judgment to dismiss a claim that the bank was liable for breach of its duty of care (as established in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd, 1992) in allowing payments from a customer’s account when on inquiry that the payments were part of a scheme to defraud the customer. Whether the duty had arisen was fact sensitive and none of the bank’s contract terms were sufficiently worded to exclude the duty. It would need very clear words for an indemnity from the customer to be read as protecting the bank against such claims [71].
8/10/19
BADYAL v BADYAL [2019] EWCA Civ 1644
The trial judge had correctly refused a winding-up order on grounds of unfair prejudice in a case where any breakdown in trust and confidence between the members in a “quasi-partnership” had been caused by the claimant’s own misconduct.
7/10/19
MENON v PASK [2019] EWHC 2611 (Ch)
A power conferred on a receiver by a mortgage contract to take possession of the mortgaged property can be asserted against the mortgagor notwithstanding the receiver’s agency for the mortgagor [27]. The mortgagor is entitled to rely on the court’s powers to postpone possession under s 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 because the receiver derives title from the mortgagee within the meaning of s 39 of the 1970 Act [42].
2/10/19
NATIXIS SA v MAREX FINANCIAL [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm)
The claimant succeeded in a claim for damages for the defendant’s breach of contract in providing forged warehouse receipts in connection with repo transactions for the purchase of nickel. The court considered principles of common mistake [181], bailment [227], collateral contracts [251], estoppel [280], negligence [289], the impact of disclaimers [353], contributory negligence [445], the court’s approach to clauses negativing duties and liabilities [481], the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [513] and mitigation [538].
2/10/19
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PAKISTAN IN THE UK v PRINCE MUKARRAM JAH [2019] EWHC 2551 (Ch)
Funds transferred to the claimant’s bank account from an account of the Government of Hyderabad were found to be held on express trust for the ruler of Hyderabad (Nizam VII). The court considered the principles for finding an express, constructive or resulting trust [243]. As the transfer had not been authorised by Nizam VII the funds were also recoverable in a claim for unjust enrichment. The claimant was estopped from asserting a limitation defence because its earlier reliance on sovereign immunity had prevented proceedings being brought earlier [280]. The bank was also liable in unjust enrichment. The defence of ministerial receipt was not available as the monies had not been paid away [290].
2/10/19
BARROWFEN PROPERTIES LTD v HAMBROS INVESTMENTS LTD [2019] EWHC 2548 (Ch)
Summarises the test for an injunction restraining presentation of a winding-up petition [17]. On the facts the test was not met because there was no genuine and substantial dispute.
2/10/19
LLOYD v GOOGLE LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599
A claimant can recover damages for loss of control of their data under section 13 of Data Protection Act 1998 without proving pecuniary loss or distress.