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.


Malik v Malik : South Lodge Flats Ltd v Malik (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Jun 2019

Questions of whether a claim to possession of a flat would be defeated by a defence of adverse possession, and whether raising the adverse possession defence would be an abuse of process, were not suitable for summary determination on the available facts.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 19 Jun 2019

The High Court considered the liability of the majority directors of an insolvent company in respect of a grant of security to themselves for a loan made by them to the company and in respect of a distribution in specie of the company's shareholding in a subsidiary. The court determined that liability was fault-based (as opposed to strict liability), and considered the statutory requirements in relation to distributions, the degree of detail and formality required of interim accounts, and the duty to consider the interests of creditors.

View case

(1) John Anthony Popely (2) Andrew Popely v (1) Ronald Anthony Popely (2) Cosmos Trust Ltd (3) Casterbidge Properties Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Jun 2019

A "double derivative" claim by the beneficiaries of the trust which held a minority shareholding in a company failed where the claimants could not show that the defendant had acted as a de facto director of the company or that he had acted fraudulently.

View case

In The Matter of Sprintroom Ltd sub nom Edwin John Prescott v (1) Aristides George Potamianos (2) Sprintroom Ltd : Aristides George Potamianos v (1) Edwin John Prescott (2) Sprintroom Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Jun 2019

The Court of Appeal considered two appeals concerning a decision on an unfair prejudice claim brought by a minority shareholder.

View case

(1) Koza Ltd (2) Hamdi Akin Ipek v Mustafa Akcil & 5 Ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 23 May 2019

The Court of Appeal summarised when expenditure could be said to be in the "ordinary and proper course of business" so as to bring it within the scope of an undertaking not to dispose of company assets save for that purpose. Where a sole director was a vital part of the day-to-day activities of a company, it was within the ordinary and proper course of that company's business to pay his legal expenses in resisting extradition, as it was in the company's interest to retain his services.

View case

Hancock v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2019

The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 s.116(1)(b) applied where, by a single transaction, both qualifying corporate bonds (which fell outside the charge to capital gains tax (CGT) on redemption) and non-qualifying corporate bonds (which fell within the charge to CGT on redemption) were converted into qualifying corporate bonds.

View case

Mohammed Ali Pourghazi (Claimant) v Shahrokh Kamyab & 6 Ors (Defendants & Respondents) & (1) HSBC Private Bank Ltd (2) Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Ltd (Third Parties) (2019)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2019

A bank's application to bring a claim for marshalling, which it had subsequently assigned to a different party, had not been included within the terms of a settlement agreement and a master had been entitled to dismiss the application and award the respondents their costs of the application.

View case

Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Boris Shipping Ltd & 7 Ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 May 2019

A claimant was granted permission to apply for summary judgment even though default judgment was available because the defendants could have engaged with the proceedings and a summary judgment was more readily enforceable. However, the application for summary judgment was a judicial notice and it had not been served in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial documents in Civil or Commercial Matters 1965. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying an order for alternative service.

View case

Emmerson International Corp v Renova Holding Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 20 May 2019

A freezing order which included restraining provisions and disclosure provisions was not severable and amounted to an injunction. Accordingly, a litigant in the British Virgin Islands did not need to seek permission in order to appeal against aspects of the disclosure provisions in a freezing order, as the order as a whole constituted "an injunction" under the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act s.30(4)(ii).

View case


P (a co inc in country A) v D (a co inc in country B) & ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 16 May 2019

Arbitrators had breached their duty under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.33 to act fairly and impartially as between the parties by reaching a decision on a core issue without the losing party's main witness being cross-examined on that issue and by basing their decision on a case which had not been argued.

View case

Richard Morgan QC

Practice areas
Arbitration & ADR

Persimmon Homes Ltd v (1) Anthony John Hillier (2) Colin Michael Creed (2019)

Judgment Date: 09 May 2019

A disclosure letter sent as part of a data package in the course of negotiations for a share purchase could be rectified if it did not give effect to the parties' intended transaction.

View case

Green & Newman (as Joint Administrators of each of the Respondent companies) v SCL Group Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2019

The administrators of companies in the Cambridge Analytica group had not breached their duties in connection with the hearing for an administration order, nor had they misconducted themselves during the administration. They would be appointed as the companies' liquidators.

View case

Gwinnutt v George (2019)

Judgment Date: 12 Apr 2019

Where a bankruptcy order had been made against a barrister, fees due to them pursuant to an honorarium rather than a contract automatically vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

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

(1) Maria Galazi (2) Iphegenia Galazis (Claimants) v (1) Christopher Christoforou & 5 Ors (Defendants) & Wellsford Securities Ltd (Third Party) & Ors

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2019

The court construed the words "claim" and "proceedings" in CPR Pt 38 when determining that substantial amendments made by the claimants to their particulars of claim effectively amounted to discontinuance so that they were subject to the default position under r.38.6(1) that a discontinuing party was liable to pay the other parties' costs. It considered the correct approach to the absence of a notice of discontinuance and examined the costs consequences of discontinuance and amendment.

View case

(1) Warwickshire Aviation Ltd (2) Terence Timms (3) South Warwickshire School of Flying Ltd (4) Take Flight Aviation Ltd v Littler Investments Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 25 Mar 2019

A judge had not erred in finding that an airfield owner had a reasonable prospect of obtaining planning permission to demolish buildings on the site to enable residential development, notwithstanding that the local authority's development plan contained a principle to retain and support aviation-related facilities at the airfield. The plan expected developers to contribute to achieving the principle where it was "appropriate and reasonable", conferring a discretion that allowed the local authority to take into account that the owner, for legitimate economic reasons, did not intend to re-instate the buildings' aviation-related uses even if demolition consent was refused.

View case

Joint Administrators Of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Mar 2019

Statutory interest payable on proven debts from a surplus in an administration under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.14.23(7)amounted to "yearly interest" under the Income Tax Act 2007 s.874. The interest was therefore subject to deductions of income tax.

View case

(1) Michael Rittson-Thomas (2) Hugo Rittson-Thomas (3) Kim Hughes v Oxfordshire County Council (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Feb 2019

A local authority which had sold land granted to it under the Schools Sites Act 1841 s.2 held the proceeds of sale on trust for the original grantor's descendants. Section 14, which prevented the statutory right of reverter, operated only where the land was continuing to be used for educational purposes within s.2: it did not a prevent a trust arising where the school had been closed and the site kept vacant pending its sale. A local authority's intention to use the proceeds of sale to meet part of the costs of constructing a new school did not amount to s.2 use for the purposes of education so as to engage s.14.

View case

Matthew Smith

Practice areas
Private Client

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

1 2 3 4 5

Results 61 - 80 of 1733