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 Thomas Grant

Maroil Trading Inc v Cally Ship Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3041 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 27 Oct 2020

Thomas Grant QC and Thomas Fletcher were instructed by Grosvenor Law on behalf of the Claimants (“Maroil”) in respect of an application for security for costs made by the Defendants (“Novoship”). The application raised an important point of principle on when a claimant should be ordered to provide security for a defendant’s costs of an additional claim brought against a third party, including security for the defendant’s costs exposure to that third party.

View case

UK College of Business & Computing Ltd v Bath Spa University [2020] EWHC 2157 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 20 Jul 2020

Thomas Grant QC, Narinder Jhittay, Ryan Turner, and Charles King were instructed by Berkeley Rowe International Lawyers in a commercial dispute in the Circuit Commercial Court on behalf of the UK College of Business & Computing. At the outset, Thomas Grant QC and Ryan Turner successfully obtained an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, Bath Spa University, from acting on its purported termination of a long-term services contract with the claimant in the midst of the pandemic. Thomas Grant QC then led Narinder Jhittay, with further assistance from Charles King, for the expedited trial of the proceedings, which settled on confidential terms shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing.

View case

Goldman v Zurich Insurance Plc & Anor (2020)

Judgment Date: 05 Feb 2020

Thomas Grant QC and Ryan Turner have successfully resisted an application to strike out claims in fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy on the basis that the proceedings were an abuse of process in a Henderson v Henderson sense.

View case

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

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

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

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

(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

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

(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

UBS AG v (1) Rose Capital Ventures Ltd (2) Vijay Mallya (3) Lalitha Mallya (4) Sidartha Vijay Mallya (2018)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 2018

A loan agreement that gave the mortgagee an "absolute discretion" to require repayment on three months' notice was not subject to an implied term that it be exercised rationally in accordance with Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17. The fact that a duty of good faith arose by reason of the mortgagor/mortgagee relationship pointed against the possibility of a Braganza clause being imported in relation to a core contractual provision.

View case

(1) David Ashdown (2) James Pugh (3) Alex Furness-Smith v John Patrick Griffin & 5 Ors (2018)

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2018

Although company shareholders who had sought relief under an unfair prejudice petition had established that there had been some unfairly prejudicial conduct and had obtained an order that the respondent should purchase their shares, the shares were valued as being worthless so the petitioners had been the unsuccessful parties for costs purposes. The point of establishing unfairly prejudicial conduct was not to establish the point for its own sake, but to enable petitioners to realise their shares for more than a nominal amount.

View case

Warwickshire Aviation Ltd & 6 Ors v Littler Investments Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 25 Jun 2018

The landlord of an airfield who had served notices to terminate the tenancies of companies that rented premises there had made out its opposition to the companies' application for the grant of new tenancies on the ground that it intended to demolish the premises. Given that the local authority had a broad discretion in determining planning applications, the landlord had established on the facts a reasonable prospect of obtaining permission to demolish the premises notwithstanding the local authority's development plan contained a principle to retain and support aviation-related facilities at the airfield.

View case

Frederick & Ors v Positive Solutions (Financial Services) Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 13 Mar 2018

A company providing financial advice was not vicariously liable for a fraud perpetrated by one of its agents. Although the fraud had involved an online portal the agent had had access to in his role as the company's agent, his wrongdoing had been part of a recognisably independent business and not an integral part of the company's business.

View case

Company 1 v (1) Company 2 (2) A (2017)

Judgment Date: 20 Sep 2017

The court refused to grant interim relief to a company which was involved in litigation in the same dispute in both the British Virgin Islands and in Swiss arbitration. In those circumstances it was not appropriate for the court to exercise its powers under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.44 to preserve assets or evidence.

View case

Mark Alexander Newson-Smith v Alawi Quais Abdul Mumem Al Zawawi (2017)

Judgment Date: 21 Jul 2017

Permission to bring committal proceedings against a director of two companies was refused as the proceedings would not serve the public interest; there was a risk that the applicant, who was a judgment creditor of the companies, was trying to pressurise the director into paying a debt he was not liable for. There was no strong prima facie case that the director had knowingly or recklessly made false statements in the course of CPR Pt 71 proceedings brought by the judgment creditor; he might have been careless, but that was insufficient for a finding of contempt of court.

View case

Jason Victor Fuller (part 20 claimant) v (1) Diana Carolyn Kitzing (2) Mark Eberhard Kitzing (part 20 defendants) (2017)

Judgment Date: 23 Mar 2017

A profit a prendre giving sporting rights over a property could include the right to take game birds which were on the property, notwithstanding that the birds had been bred by humans. A game bird could be wild, and thus properly the subject of a profit, even if it had been bred and fed by human agency, provided it had been released back into the wild.

View case

(1) J Toomey Motors Ltd (2) (2) Toomey (Southend) Ltd v Chevrolet UK Ltd (2017)

Judgment Date: 20 Feb 2017

A car distributor was not liable for any losses sustained by its two remaining franchisee dealerships after it had scaled back its operation following its notice to terminate the franchise agreement. The nature of the franchisees' claim required them to show that the distributor had breached an obligation to offer them the same financial incentives that had helped their profitability before the termination notice, and no such obligation could be implied into the agreement.

View case

Hawk Recovery v Hall & Brunswick Wealth

Judgment Date: 03 Jun 2016

The court declined to order the sale of a property owned by debtors where the debtors had an appeal pending against an order that the creditor had a beneficial interest in the property, and would be able to repay the debt if they won their appeal.

View case

1 2 3 4

Results 1 - 20 of 66