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 Catherine Newman

Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas Pte Ltd v (1) Eurochem Trading GMBH (2) JSC MCC Eurochem (2018)

Judgment Date: 24 Aug 2018

An application to continue an injunction preventing the enforcement of a US court order requiring a company director to disclose documents and provide deposition evidence was refused in circumstances where the court did not have a legitimate interest in policing an attempt to obtain documents for use in foreign proceedings, let alone in reviewing a decision of the US court.

View case

Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair (2017)

Judgment Date: 19 May 2017

The claimant, which was alleging negligence on the part of the defendant solicitors in relation to amendments made to a company's articles of association in 2004, had no prospect of defeating the solicitors' reliance on the expiry of the limitation period.

View case

In the Matter of TPD Investments Ltd Sub Nom Destiny Investments (1993) Ltd v TH Holdings Ltd (2017)

Judgment Date: 31 Mar 2017

The court determined the appropriate remedy in a case of unfair prejudice within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 s.994. It considered the fair value of the petitioners' shares in the company concerned, whether the percentage of shares attributable to them should be increased, and whether any personal liability should attach to the directors of the respondent company and the company concerned.

View case

Smith (Personal Representative of Hugh Smith (Deceased) & Ors v Molyneaux (2016)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 2016

In a possession claim relating to a shack in which adverse possession was raised as a defence, the first-instance judge had been entitled to find that the defendant had occupied the shack with the claimant owners' permission, so that adverse possession did not apply.

View case

Trilogy Management Ltd (A company incorporated in the Bailliwick of Jersey) v Harcus Sinclair (A firm) (2016)

Judgment Date: 02 Feb 2016

A claim for breach of duty against solicitors for negligent drafting of documents was out of time and the claimant had insufficiently pleaded deliberate wrongdoing so as to postpone commencement of the limitation period. However, a claim raised in replies to further information that the solicitors had acted without instructions had an arguable prospect of success and arose out of the same facts, so the claimant would be given the opportunity to apply for permission to amend to add that claim.

View case

Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Ors (2015)

Judgment Date: 10 Feb 2015

The court considered applications under CPR r.31.22 and r.32.12 for permission for the collateral use of documents disclosed and witness statements served in proceedings arising out of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. It observed that the public interest was against the collateral use of documents forming part of a criminal investigation, and it considered the nature of the test to be applied on an application under r.31.22(2) to restore protection against collateral use.

View case

Robert Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office & Ors (Dec 2014)

Judgment Date: 11 Dec 2014

The strong public interest in preserving the integrity of criminal investigations and in protecting those who provided information to prosecuting authorities from any wider dissemination of that information outweighed the interests of a party bringing a claim for damages against the Serious Fraud Office in their disclosure, where that claimant had failed to advance a cogent or comprehensible case as to the relevance and probative value of those documents in unrelated proceedings.

View case

Robert Tchenguiz v Serious Fraud Office & Ors (Nov 2014)

Judgment Date: 13 Nov 2014

The judge below had been entitled to make an order for costs on the indemnity basis following the claimant's unsuccessful application under the CPR r.31.22; among other things, the fact that the claimant was seeking the relevant documents for extraneous purposes took the case outside the norm. However, there should be no general principle that indemnity costs would be awarded against the applicant in relation to an unsuccessful application under r.31.22.

View case

Robert Tchenguiz & Ors v Serious Fraud Office & Ors (Oct 2014)

Judgment Date: 13 Oct 2014

The rules requiring concision in skeleton arguments in the Court of Appeal existed to enable the court to deal with its business in a timely and efficient manner. There was no exception to the rules for commercial litigation: it was just as important to put one's argument concisely in complex commercial cases as in any other kind of case.

View case

Regione Piemonte v Dexia Crediop SPA (2014)

Judgment Date: 09 Oct 2014

A judge had been entitled to reject an application to set aside a default judgment, even though the applicant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, where the application had been made almost a year after judgment. Permission to appeal against the rejection of the application was therefore refused.

View case

Robert Tchenguiz & Ors v Serious Fraud Office & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 28 Jul 2014

It was not appropriate to allow the well-known businessman Robert Tchenguiz to deploy, in unrelated proceedings in Guernsey, documents disclosed by the Serious Fraud Office in the instant action, being a claim for damages arising from unlawful search warrants issued by the Serious Fraud Office.

View case

Robert Tchenguiz & Ors v Serious Fraud Office & Ors (16 July 2014)

Judgment Date: 16 Jul 2014

It was appropriate to grant the claimant permission to instruct a review team to identify documents disclosed by the Serious Fraud Office in the instant action which might be relevant to a pending appeal in unrelated proceedings in Guernsey.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 14 May 2014

A judge had been entitled to order the trial of an issue as to whether a Russian businessman was the beneficial owner of shares in a company for the purposes of freezing and receivership orders made against him.

View case

Intesa Sanpaolo SPA v Regione Piemonte (2013)

Judgment Date: 16 Jul 2013

An Italian public authority's delay in applying to set aside a default judgment granting declaratory relief to two banks was sufficient in itself to justify refusing its applications. Further, the authority had disclosed no sound basis for why summary judgment should not be granted in favour of the banks in related money actions.

View case

JD Wetherspoon PLC v Jason Harris & Ors (2013)

Judgment Date: 17 May 2013

A public house operator had more than a fanciful chance of establishing at trial that its agent had been dishonest and in breach of fiduciary duty by acting for another party in finding suitable property that it might well have wanted to buy. Further, most of a statement by a defence witness based on facts derived from documents and containing argument and submissions would be struck out as an abuse, as the witness had only indirect knowledge and was not an expert.

View case

Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Sean Breslin (No 4) (2013)

Judgment Date: 18 Mar 2013

The court determined a number of costs issues in a case where the costs of the successful claimant were likely to exceed the damages awarded.

View case

Sycamore Bidco v Breslin & Dawson No. 1 (2012)

Judgment Date: 30 Nov 2012

Although various warranties included in a share sale agreement did not constitute representations and there had therefore been no misrepresentation by the sellers of the shares in the company, the inclusion of inappropriate amounts in the company accounts as turnover gave rise to breaches of the warranties.

View case

F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Francois Barthelemy & Anthony Culligan (2011)

Judgment Date: 28 Oct 2011

Where parties to complex litigation had been compelled to take out loans at a high rate of interest to pay for their legal costs, and where their opponent had acted in such a way as to attract an order for costs on the indemnity basis, it was appropriate that they should be paid interest on costs at the actual rate that they had had to bear.

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 3

Results 1 - 20 of 53