19/9/17
CENTENARY HOMES LTD v GERSHINSON (Ch)
Summary judgment was given dismissing a claim that receivers sold mortgaged property at an undervalue by selling it as a block of flats rather than selling the flats individually. The court reviewed the duties of receivers realising security [29]. The undervalue allegation was not supported by credible valuation evidence and there was nothing to suggest the receivers had acted outside the wide margin of appreciation recognised in the authorities.
18/9/17
HIGGINS v ERC ACCOUNTANTS & BUSINESS ADVISERS LTD [2017] EWHC 2190 (Ch)
Provision of a copy of a claim form by letter to the defendant’s solicitors had not constituted service on the defendant. Orders for service by an alternative method, dispensing with service or for an extension of time for serving the claim form were refused because claimants could not show that they had taken all reasonable steps to serve within time and no good reason had been shown for making the orders sought.
13/9/17
GLOBAL CORPORATE LTD v HALE [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch)
A claim was made to recover payments from a director on grounds that the payments had been unlawful dividends, a preference/undervalue and paid in breach of fiduciary duty. The claim failed. The payments had not been dividends because at the time of making them the director had not made a decision to pay them as dividends. He had intended to leave that decision until the accounts were prepared and indicated that there were sufficient distributable reserves. There had been no undervalue or breach of fiduciary duty because the respondent had a claim to the monies for his services. The claimant had no title to sue to recover a preferential payment, as that claim had not been assigned to the claimant and remained with the liquidator who was not a party to the application.
12/9/17
LACHAUX v INDEPENDENT PRINT LTD [2017] EWCA Civ 1327
The judge had been right to hold that documents were confidential and covered by legal professional privilege. The judge had also therefore been right to make orders that the documents should be returned, copies destroyed and restraining the defendants from disclosing or using them.
12/9/17
The court allowed a claim to rectify a settlement. The court summarised the principles of rectification generally [25] and in relation to rectification of voluntary settlements [26].
4/9/17
WILTON UK LTD v SHUTTLEWORTH [2017] EWHC 2195 (Ch)
Failure to obtain permission to serve a derivative claim in accordance with Companies Act 2006 s 261 and CPR 19.9A invalidated steps taken in the proceedings, but the court had jurisdiction retrospectively to validate the claim. The court would hear further submissions as to how that jurisdiction should be exercised.
4/9/17
THOMAS v HUGH JAMES FORD SIMEY SOLICITORS [2017] EWCA Civ 1303
Solicitors acting in a high volume, fixed costs scheme for low value personal injury cases, were held not to have been under a duty to advise about heads of claim which the client had said he did not wish to pursue and for which he said he could not provide supporting evidence. If a client instructs his solicitor that he does not wish to pursue a particular head of claim and that he does not have evidence to support it, the solicitor is not necessarily under a duty to challenge that decision or to try to change the client's mind. If the client is an adult of full capacity, there comes a point when his autonomy should be respected [42].