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

HML PM Ltd v Canary Riverside (2019)

Judgment Date: 17 Dec 2019

Thomas Grant QC and Ryan Turner, acting on behalf of the owners of the Canary Riverside development, have successfully resisted an application for an injunction to control the use of documents over which the applicant asserted confidentiality and legal professional privilege.

View case

Members
Ryan Turner

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Derby Teaching Hospitals v Derby CC & Charity Commission (2019)

Judgment Date: 12 Dec 2019

12 December 2019 wasn’t merely a momentous day for the nation politically, it also saw the High Court hand down judgment on one of the year’s most interesting charity cases.

View case

Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 09 Dec 2019

In this case the court was asked to construe two provisions that are extremely common in commercial leases; a “conclusive certification” clause and a “no set-off” clause. The question for the court was: could the landlord obtain summary judgment for service charge arrears against its tenant in reliance on the two clauses? The court’s reasoning is of interest to both real property practitioners and commercial litigators generally.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Real Estate

Griffith v Gourgey (2019)

Judgment Date: 22 Nov 2019

In proceedings concerning two petitions alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct, the court emphasised the importance of petitions being fully and properly pleaded. However, the rigour of the approach described in In the Matter of Tecnion Investments Limited [1985] 6 WLUK 68 was less important where the court directed points of claim and points of defence under the Companies (Unfair Prejudice Applications) Proceedings Rules 1986 r.5. In such cases, the petition had to specify the grounds, but need not be fully particularised.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 07 Nov 2019

Where a liquidator had taken office in order to pursue a claim against the company's directors at a time when there were no other material assets in the company, and the firm in which he was a partner had funded an early stage of that claim, the firm could not be regarded as a pure funder facilitating access to justice when it came to establishing costs liability after the claim failed. Although the appointment of liquidator was a personal one, his firm stood to gain financially from the liquidator's remuneration and from the uplift it had negotiated. Accordingly, the firm had a sufficient interest in the proceedings to warrant characterisation as a commercial funder and a real party for the purposes of the third-party costs jurisdiction.

View case

Warner Music & Sony Music v TuneIn (2019)

Judgment Date: 01 Nov 2019

A service enabling users, via a website or app, to access internet music radio stations around the world had communicated copyright works to the public contrary to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.20 where the radio stations were not licensed in the UK or elsewhere, where they were licensed for a territory other than the UK, or where they were premium stations created exclusively for the service.

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 KC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Lee Victor Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP (2019)

Judgment Date: 02 Oct 2019

Legal advice privilege attaching to communications between a client and their lawyers, once established, remained in existence unless and until it was waived. It was established as a result of the purpose for which, and the circumstances in which, the communications had been made. It was not lost if there was no person entitled to assert it when a disclosure request was made.

View case

Glossop Cartons & Print Ltd v Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 11 Sep 2019

The purchaser of a commercial unit successfully established fraudulent misrepresentation where the vendor had deliberately failed to disclose that the electricity supply to the unit came through another unit, whose owner was entitled to cut off the supply, and had also told the purchaser that a problem with the unit's drainage was being addressed. Both misrepresentations were made to progress the sale at the price already agreed.

View case

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2019]

Judgment Date: 30 Aug 2019

For the purposes of entitlement to capital allowances, the costs of launching leased satellites into orbit did not amount to the provision of machinery and plant for the purposes of the lessees trade. The Capital Allowances Act 1990 s.78(1) did not operate to deem that the satellites belonged to a company that had succeeded to the lessees business.

View case

Folgender Holdings Ltd v Letraz Properties Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Aug 2019

The CPR permitted secondary evidence to be given provided that the requirements of CPR PD 32 para.18.2 were complied with. That was an important requirement: the court had to know in every instance from what source the secondary evidence came. If a party chose to provide evidence through a solicitor, strict compliance with the CPR was required if that party was to avoid the risk that limited, or possibly no, weight was given to the evidence.

View case

Homes Of England Ltd v Horsham Holdings Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 31 Jul 2019

The court granted an interim injunction preventing property developers from refinancing a development without first paying back a loan from a petitioning company, where there was a seriously arguable case that the developers were conducting business which was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner where flats had been taken off the market without being sold.

View case

Akcil & Ors v Koza Ltd & Anor (2019)

Judgment Date: 29 Jul 2019

The Supreme Court interpreted Regulation 1215/2012 art.24(2), which set out special jurisdictional rules on the governance of corporations. Where a party was able to bring one claim within art.24(2), that party was not permitted to add on another claim which was conceptually distinct if the claim was not inextricably bound up with the former claim and if it was not principally concerned with the validity of decisions of the organs of a company which had its seat in England. A mere link between a claim which engaged art.24(2) and one which did not was not sufficient to bring the latter within the scope of art.24(2).

View case

Ingenious Games v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

The First-tier Tribunal had erred in concluding that limited liability partnerships involved in the production of films and computer games had carried on a trade for the purpose of being able to claim trading losses in their partnership returns, and had wrongly applied a partly objective test when considering whether the trade had been carried on with a view to a profit.

View case

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

European Film Bonds v Lotus Holdings LLC (2019)

Judgment Date: 25 Jul 2019

The court declined to stay proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.9 where an arbitration agreement in a film completion guarantee covered the issue whether completion and delivery of the film had occurred but not the issue between the parties as to whether in the circumstances completion and delivery was deemed to have occurred. The court declined to stay the proceedings in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction or on case management grounds.

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

Articles & Publications Complaints Procedure Facilities Instructing a Barrister News Cases Jas Bains v (1) Arunvill Capital Ltd (2) Hollbeach Solutions LLP (2019) Seminars Terms of Business Disclaime

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2019

On the proper interpretation of a financial consultancy agreement, a material breach by the consultant, consisting of an indication that he would no longer continue to perform the services specified by the contract, could only be remedied by his actually resuming performance. A mere assurance that he would do so was not sufficient to remedy the breach.

View case

Sarvenaz Fouladi v Darout Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Jun 2019

In a case concerning noise nuisance in which the claim against the first to third defendants succeeded, but the claim against the fourth defendant failed, a judge had been entitled to make a Bullock order requiring the unsuccessful defendants to meet the costs ordered to be paid by the claimant to the successful defendant. It had been reasonable for the claimant to join the fourth defendant as a party to the action because the first to third defendants had sought to blame the fourth defendant for the nuisance.

View case

Members

Clochfaen Estate Ltd v Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Jun 2019

The carrying out of industrial works on agricultural land over which a claimant enjoyed various sporting, shooting and fishing rights was a substantial interference with those rights. However, the claimant had not exercised its rights for over 60 years and it was unlikely that it had suffered any pecuniary loss. Nominal damages were therefore awarded.

View case

Members

Practice areas
Real Estate

1 2 3 4 5

Results 41 - 60 of 1732