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 David Mumford

The State of Qatar v Banque Havilland [2021] EWHC 2172 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2021

David Mumford QC and Thomas Munby (with Hugo Leith of Brick Court) act for the State of Qatar in proceedings in the Commercial Court against Banque Havilland SA (the “Bank”).

View case

Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd & Cho Kwai Chee (2020)

Judgment Date: 01 Apr 2020

The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the discharge of a Black Swan freezing injunction for want of jurisdiction over the second respondent, Dr Cho. In doing so, the Court of Appeal affirmed the applicability of the Privy Council’s judgment in Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284 in the Territory of the Virgin Islands: in short, it is not possible for proceedings seeking only freezing order relief against a foreign respondent to be served on that respondent out of the jurisdiction.

View case

Alibrahim v Asturion Foundation (2020)

Judgment Date: 24 Jan 2020

The Court of Appeal has provided authoritative guidance on the abuse of process known as “warehousing” in its first judgment on the subject for almost 20 years. David Mumford QC and James Kinman appeared for the successful respondent.

View case

SL Claimants v Tesco PLC (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Oct 2019

An investor who held securities in dematerialised form through a chain of intermediaries had an equitable property right amounting to an "interest in securities" and was entitled to make a compensation claim under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.90A for losses incurred as a result of reliance on untrue or misleading information published by the issuer.

View case

Members
David Mumford QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Asturion Foundation v Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim (2019)

Judgment Date: 15 Feb 2019

The appellant's decision to suspend the progress of its claim against the respondent while related litigation was taking place in Liechtenstein should not have led to the striking out of the claim.

View case

BAT v Sequana (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Feb 2019

A common law duty to have regard to creditors' interests could be triggered when a company's circumstances fell short of actual insolvency. Such a duty arose when the directors knew or should have known that the company was or was likely to become insolvent. In that context, "likely" meant probable.

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

BTI 2014 LLC v (1) Sequana SA (2) Antoine Courteault (3) Pierre Martinet (4) Clive Mountford (5) Martin Newell: Bat Industries Plc v (1) Sequana SA (2) Windward Prospects Ltd (2017)

Judgment Date: 02 Jun 2017

It was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under CPR r.3.1(7) to revoke part of an order imposing a stay of execution of a remedy. Maintaining the stay would be otiose in circumstances where the original reason for its grant, namely to avoid stifling an appeal, was no longer relevant.

View case

BTI 2014 LLC v (1) Sequana SA (2) Antoine Courteault (3) Pierre Martinet (4) Clive Mountford (5) Martin Newell: Bat Industries Plc v (1) Sequana SA (2) Windward Prospects Ltd (2017)

Judgment Date: 10 Feb 2017

The court considered the relief that should be granted to a successful claimant under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423.

View case

Cepia HK Ltd v Character Group Plc (2016)

Judgment Date: 08 Dec 2016

A share option agreement between a Hong Kong toy manufacturer and a UK distributor was expressed to be conditional upon the distribution arrangements between the parties continuing up to the date on which the option was exercised. The manufacturer's action in rescinding the distributor's invitation to a toy fair made it clear that it regarded the relationship between the parties as being at an end and thus invalidated the option agreement.

View case

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA : BAT Industries v Sequana SA & Windward Prospects Ltd (2016)

Judgment Date: 12 Jul 2016

Where a company had on its balance sheet an estimated provision in respect of a long-term liability, there was no justification for holding that the duty to protect creditors' interests under the Companies Act 2006 s.172 applied for the whole period during which there was a risk that there might be insufficient assets to meet that liability. If that were the case, the directors would have to take account of creditors' rather than shareholders' interests when running a business over an extended period.

View case

Canary Wharf Finance II plc v Deutsche Trustee Company Limited (2016)

Judgment Date: 28 Jan 2016

Where the terms relating to the issue of mortgage-backed debentures gave the borrower an option to release a secured property in return for a prepayment of the debenture out of the sale proceeds, that prepayment was not a "mandatory repayment". As a matter of language and on the basis of commercial sense, it was a voluntary prepayment which properly gave rise to a Spens payment.

View case

Erste Group Bank AG (London) v JSC (VMZ Red October) [2015]

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2015

Two Russian defendants to proceedings alleging unlawful means conspiracy established that a judge had been wrong to find that England was the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute. Although the proceedings concerned a loan governed by English law, the starting point for deciding forum was the place of commission of the tort. That was Russia. The judge had been wrong to determine the issue by examining technical factors urged on him by the claimant instead of standing back and identifying where the fundamental focus of the litigation was.

View case

Standard Chartered Bank LTD v Zungeru Power LTD (2014)

Judgment Date: 14 Nov 2014

A bank's application to set aside the registration of a freezing order and an ancillary disclosure order of a Nigerian court under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 s.9 was granted as those orders could not be registered as they were not "judgments" as defined under s.12 of the Act.

View case

Erste Group Bank AG (London) v JSC (VMZ Red October) & Ors (2013)

Judgment Date: 03 Oct 2013

It had been appropriate to permit service of proceedings alleging unlawful means conspiracy on defendants outside the jurisdiction in Russia as there was a serious issue to be tried, the relevant requirements of CPR PD 6B para.3.1 were met, and the claimant had demonstrated that England was the appropriate and proper forum for the dispute's determination.

View case

Mira Makar v Russell Jones & Walker & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 19 Nov 2012

A statement of claim was struck out as it did not disclose any claim, or any vestige of a claim, and it was totally without merit.

View case

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Thomas Sinclair et al (2012)

Judgment Date: 12 Sep 2012

A claim that the defendants had dishonestly assisted a third party in committing a breach of fiduciary duty represented an abuse of process given that the relevant factual allegations had been determined against the claimant in arbitration proceedings between it and the third party. There could be no rule that the court could not strike out an action as an abuse of process merely because the tribunal whose decision was under attack was an arbitral tribunal.

View case

Boris Berezovsky v Roman Abramovich (2012)

Judgment Date: 31 Aug 2012

The claimant Russian businessman failed to prove any binding agreement that he was to have an interest in a Russian oil company or a Russian aluminium company.

View case

Shiraz Boghani v Bashir Nathoo (2011)

Judgment Date: 02 Aug 2011

An order obliging partners to complete unfinished property developments after the dissolution of their partnership was not necessary to wind-up the affairs of the partnership for the purposes of the Partnership Act 1890 s.38.

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 32