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

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

Kamal Siddiqi v Taparis Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Feb 2019

A tribunal judge had made a serious procedural error in finding that a bankruptcy petition was unopposed because the notice of opposition had been filed late, and that accordingly he had jurisdiction to hear the petition. He should have adjourned the hearing and transferred it to a specialist court, in accordance with CPR PD 57AA and CPR PD (Insolvency Proceedings).

View case

VB Football Assets v (1) Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Ltd (Formerly Segesta Ltd) (2) Owen Oyston (3) Karl Oyston (4) Blackpool Football Club Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Feb 2019

With a view to satisfying a substantial judgment debt owed to the petitioner, it was appropriate to appoint receivers by way of equitable execution over certain assets belonging to the first and second respondents.

View case

Prince Arthur Ikpechukwu Eze v Conway & Anor (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Feb 2019

A contract for a property purchase was not void or voidable despite the vendors' agreement to pay the acquisition agent a fee without the buyer's knowledge. The agent's relationship to the buyer was not such as to engage the law on bribery and secret commissions, so the agreement could not constitute a promise of a bribe or secret commission.

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

(1) Koshigi Ltd (2) Svoboda Corp v (1) Donna Union Foundation (2) Ulmart Holdings Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 30 Jan 2019

It was appropriate to order the claimants to pay the costs of two applications under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.68 which they had discontinued. Further, those costs should be paid on the indemnity basis, the claimants' conduct having taken the case out of the norm.

View case

Funding Secure Ltd v Matthew Green (2019)

Judgment Date: 29 Jan 2019

The claimant peer-to-peer lender succeeded in claims against the defendant borrower for deceit and breach of contract, and in debt.

View case

Sueda Yusuf (Claimant) v (1) Tanju Yusuf (2) Pekalp Properties Ltd (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Jan 2019

In a dispute relating to a family-owned property company, the court granted an unfair prejudice petition and determined issues on the evidence, including the individual shareholdings of the respective family members and whether any were held on trust, and the status of purported share transfer and trust documentation.

View case

Alexis Maitland-Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority (2019)

Judgment Date: 24 Jan 2019

There was no blanket rule that, when considering a litigant's ability to participate effectively in proceedings, judges had to ignore what they saw and heard in court and be guided only by medical evidence. Judges were entitled to form their own views and were not bound by expert evidence, even if it was agreed.

View case

Cunico Resources NV v Daskalakis ('The 2017 Claim') : Cunico Marketing Fze v Daskalakis ('The 2018 Claim') (2019)

Judgment Date: 18 Jan 2019

The High Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear claims by three companies against their chief executive officer and chief financial officer, because the claims were matters relating to individual contracts of employment under the Lugano Convention 2007 s.5 and the defendants were not domiciled in the UK. It reached that decision even though the defendants were employed by only two of the three claimant companies, by relying on the decisions in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828.

View case

Gary Joseph McDonald v Michelle Rose & 8 Ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 15 Jan 2019

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the procedure to be followed by parties wishing to seek permission from a lower court to appeal to an appeal court.

View case

Deansgate 123 LLP v (1) Ian Garth Workman (2) Ian Grant Workman : Carol Ann Forrester (As Executrix Of The Estate Of Susan Margaret Workman) v (1) Ian Garth Workman (2) Ian Grant Workman (2019)

Judgment Date: 11 Jan 2019

Applications under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423 to set aside a transfer of property were not struck out as an abuse of process where they had been brought subsequent to the determination of the issue of the validity of the transfer. The question of validity was separate from the issue of whether the transfer should be set aside. It was therefore not the case that the s.423 applications should have been brought as part of the earlier proceedings.

View case

(1) Smiths Interconnect Group Ltd (2) Kaelus Communications Equipment (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Quintel Technology Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 20 Dec 2018

The claimants were entitled to summary judgment on invoices for goods supplied where the defendant had failed to show any realistic prospect of defending the claim on the basis that the goods supplied were deficient in quality, thereby giving rise to a cross-claim.

View case

(1) Blue Power Group Sarl (2) Blue Wave Co SA (3) Blue Mgmt Ltd v (1) Eni Norge as (2) Eni Spa (3) Eniprogetti Spa (formerly Fecnomare Spa) (2018)

Judgment Date: 20 Dec 2018

Ahead of a breach of contract claim, it would be disproportionate to grant the defendants a Norwich Pharmacal order that the claimants disclose the source of documents in their possession that were potentially covered by the defendants' legal professional privilege. Given that it appeared that the parties had regularly shared such confidential information with each other over a number of years, the defendants' case on wrongdoing was weak, and the claimants were in no better position than the defendants to identify the particular source of any given document.

View case

Sarvenaz Fouladi (Claimant/Respondent) v (1) Darout Ltd (2) Ahmed El Kerrami (3) Sarah El Kerrami (Defendants/Appellants) & St Mary Abbots Court Ltd (Defendant) : Sarvenaz Fouladi v St Mary Abbots Cou

Judgment Date: 19 Dec 2018

A lessee and occupiers of a flat were liable in nuisance for noise caused to the occupiers of the flat below where the flooring of the upper flat was inadequate to prevent significant noise transmission. The lessee was also in breach of covenant under the lease for failing to obtain the landlord's consent to renovation works resulting in the inadequate flooring. Although the landlord was aware of the works, it had no knowledge of the nuisance and was therefore not liable by participation.

View case

Aldford House Freehold Ltd v (1) Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate (2) K Group Holding Inc (2018)

Judgment Date: 14 Dec 2018

Whether premises comprised a "flat" within the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.101 depended on whether they had been constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling. The test was not whether the premises had reached such an extent of fitting out, or remained in such good condition, that they could actually be used for living in.

View case

Members

(1) Cunico Resources NV (2) Cunico Marketing FZE (3) Feni Industries AD v (1) Konstantinos Daskalakis (2) Arvind Mundhra : Cunico Marketing FZE v (1) Konstantinos Daskalakis (2) Arvind Mundhra (2018)

Judgment Date: 07 Dec 2018

The court commented on the proper construction of CPR r.12.3(1), which provided for the claimant to obtain judgment in default of acknowledgment of service if certain conditions were met. The meaning of r.12.3(1) had been the subject of conflicting first-instance decisions, and it was to be hoped that the Court of Appeal would rule definitively on its construction.

View case

Wirsol Energy Ltd v Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 06 Dec 2018

A claimant was entitled to its costs leading up to the withdrawal of its summary judgment application as it had been reasonable to make the application on the basis of the original three grounds of defence. Costs that accrued following abandonment of those defences and the raising of a new defence, and the consequent withdrawal of the application, were reserved.

View case

Members

Julian Cohen v Stobart Holdings Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 05 Dec 2018

A company failed to obtain summary judgment or to strike out a claim against it for commission for introducing a purchaser of two aircraft. Whilst the claim as formulated needed to be reviewed, potentially to join further defendants, it had a realistic prospect of success.

View case

Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v (1) Millgate Developments Ltd (2) Housing Solutions Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 28 Nov 2018

The guidance given by Lord Sumption in Coventry (t/a RDC Promotions) v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, a nuisance case in which an injunction was claimed to restrain noise created by a use authorised by planning permission, was not appropriate guidance in a determination of whether upholding a restrictive covenant was contrary to the public interest under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.84(1A)(b).

View case

1 2 3 4 5

Results 81 - 100 of 1732