This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Christopher Pymont

Tugushev v Orlov [2019]

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

A claimant's failure to make due enquiry in relation to allegations forming a core piece of the defendant's defence, and his consequent failure to fairly represent the merits of that defence on a without notice application for a worldwide freezing order, had amounted to serious non-disclosure and the freezing order was set aside. The freezing order was not re-granted on the return hearing because there was no risk of the defendant dissipating his assets.

View case

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v Abdulmagid Breish (2019)

Judgment Date: 10 Jul 2019

Under the "one voice" doctrine, whereby if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office chose to recognise somebody as the executive authority of a foreign state then the court could not second-guess the recognition, the lawfulness or validity under foreign law of the acts of the recognised foreign government could not be challenged by submitting that that government was not lawfully constituted under the foreign law.

View case

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v (1) Abdulmagid Breish (2) Hussein Mohamed Hussein Abdlmora (3) Mark James Shaw & Shane Michael Crooks (4) Libyan Investment Authority (2019)

Judgment Date: 01 Apr 2019

The court declined to make a supplementary declaration clarifying its existing declarations in a claim regarding the chairmanship of the Libyan Investment Authority.

View case

Alexander Tugushev v (1) Vitaly Orlov (2) Magnus Roth (3) Andrey Petrik (2019)

Judgment Date: 27 Mar 2019

The claimant, who was pursuing a claim of unlawful means conspiracy against three defendants, had a good arguable case that the first defendant, a Russian businessman, had been resident, and therefore domiciled, in England when the claim form was issued. The English courts therefore had jurisdiction to hear the claim against him.

View case

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v (1) Abdulmagid Breish (2) Hussein Mohamed Hussein Abdlmora (3) Mark James Shaw & Shane Michael Crooks (4) Libyan Investment Authority (2019)

Judgment Date: 14 Feb 2019

The court declared in the context of a dispute over the chairmanship of the Libyan Investment Authority that the question of which body represented the executive authority and government of Libya fell to be determined, if it arose before the English court, under English law, and that the executive authority and government of Libya had been represented since April 2017 by the Government of National Accord and the Presidency Council.

View case

Roger Moore v Stephen Moore (2018)

Judgment Date: 27 Nov 2018

Where a son had established his entitlement by way of proprietary estoppel to his father's share in the assets and business of a farm they had previously run as a partnership, the court gave guidance on how the son's equity should be satisfied. Although it was possible to adopt a solution which accelerated the son's entitlement, that was not to be done at the expense of proper provision for the parents during the remainder of their lives

View case

United Co Rusal Plc v Crispian Investments Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 14 Sep 2018

There was no reason to apply any special principles of interpretation to a shareholders' agreement which provided for a right of first refusal in the event of a disposal of shares by one of the investors, notwithstanding that the terms of the agreement in relation to the rights attached to shares differed from those in the company's articles of association.

View case

John David Sheffield v John Julian Lionel George Sheffield & Ors (2018)

Judgment Date: 13 Sep 2018

The court considered the proper approach to determining liability for costs where parties had reached a compromise. In particular, in a breach of trust claim where accounts and inquiries had been ordered against the defaulting trustees, the starting point was that the trustees would be ordered to pay the beneficiary's costs of the claim, including the costs of the accounts and inquiries made necessary by the breach of trust.

View case

Michael Tuke v JD Classics Ltd (Formerly JD Classics Holdings Ltd) (2018)

Judgment Date: 16 Mar 2018

Where a claimant had served a notice to prove after the original deadline for service of witness statements, the notice was out of time, pursuant to CPR r.32.19(2)(a). The fact that a judge struck out the bulk of the witness statements which had been served and set a fresh deadline for the service of replacement statements did not have the effect of setting aside the claimant's deemed acceptance of the documents' authenticity which occurred once the original deadline passed.

View case

Ivey v Genting Casinos (T/A Crockfords Club) (2017)

Judgment Date: 25 Oct 2017

The subjective element of the test for dishonesty in R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran) [1982] Q.B. 1053 did not correctly represent the law and directions based on it should no longer be given. When dishonesty was in question, the fact-finding tribunal had first to ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The question whether the conduct was honest or dishonest was then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

View case

Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) (2017)

Judgment Date: 25 Oct 2017

Club) (2017) Summary The subjective element of the test for dishonesty in R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran) [1982] Q.B. 1053 did not correctly represent the law and directions based on it should no longer be given. When dishonesty was in question, the fact-finding tribunal had first to ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The question whether the conduct was honest or dishonest was then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

View case

(1) TCG Pubs Ltd (In Administration) & Ors v The Master & Wardens or Governors of the Art of Mystery of the Girdlers of London (2017)

Judgment Date: 10 Apr 2017

Under the terms of a lease, a landlord's buy-back option had to be triggered by a formal grant, and a letter containing an offer to sell the residue of the lease to the landlord did not suffice.

View case

Phillip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) (2016)

Judgment Date: 03 Nov 2016

A casino had been entitled to withhold a gambler's winnings on the basis that he had breached the implied term in their contract that he should not cheat. Although the gambler had believed that his technique in a card game was honest, his view of his conduct was not determinative. His conduct fell within the ordinary meaning of cheating. The court's members disagreed as to the mens rea of cheating contrary to the Gambling Act 2005 s.42.

View case

FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious & Cedar Capital (2016)

Judgment Date: 02 Mar 2016

The court examined the principles of tracing and determined that where a fiduciary had paid trust money into one account and its own money into another account held at the same bank, the funds could not be said to have been mixed. In such circumstances, the principles of tracing established in Hallett's Estate, Re (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696 rather than those established in Oatway, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 356 applied.

View case

Krys v KBC Partners LP (British Virgin Islands) (2015)

Judgment Date: 19 Nov 2015

In a liquidation, special limited partners were not entitled to claim a bonus based on a sale of the assets where there had been no sale and they had been distributed in specie to the principal partner that had initially contributed them.

View case

Philip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) (2014)

Judgment Date: 08 Oct 2014

In the first case since the coming into force of the Gambling Act 2005, an English court had to determine whether the conduct of a party to a gambling contract amounted to cheating for the purposes of the civil law. The use of a croupier as an innocent agent in circumstances where she had not realised the consequences of her actions constituted cheating.

View case

FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (2014)

Judgment Date: 09 Jul 2014

Where an agent received a bribe or secret commission in breach of his fiduciary duty to his principal, he held that bribe or secret commission on trust for his principal, meaning that the principal had a proprietary claim to it.

View case

John David Sheffield v John Julian Lionel George Sheffield & Ors (2013)

Judgment Date: 13 Dec 2013

The contemporaneous documentation did not prove that before the beneficiary of a trust of land declared that he held his interest on trust for his grandson, they had made an arrangement that the grandfather would continue to keep all the income attributable to the gifted interest while he was alive and continue to act in relation to that quarter share as if he were still the owner.

View case

Horace Parshall v Clara Hackney (2013)

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2013

Rectification and indemnification were the only remedies for mistakes resulting from concurrent registration of land in two different titles; nobody with registered title to land could, at the same time, establish possessory title, because their occupation of the land would not be unlawful. Time did not, therefore, begin to run for the purposes of adverse possession until rectification had taken place. The Limitation Act 1980 did not apply to the statutory right of rectification.

View case

Members
Christopher Pymont QC

Practice areas
Real Estate

1 2 3

Results 1 - 20 of 59