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 Gregory Banner

Courtwood Holdings SA (a company registered & incorporated under the laws of Panama) v Woodley Properties Ltd (a company registered & incorporated under the laws of Jersey) & 10 Ors (2018)

Judgment Date: 09 Oct 2018

A company which had contracted with a special purpose vehicle to provide advice regarding land acquisition and planning matters also had a fiduciary duty towards the SPV where the practical reality was that the SPV's directors had no expertise in those matters and were entirely dependent on the advice for day-to-day decision-making. A contractual duty to provide services with due skill and care was not inconsistent with the existence of a fiduciary duty.

View case

London & Ilford Ltd v Sovereign Property Holdings Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 10 Jul 2018

In relation to the purchase of a property for residential development, the court upheld an interpretation of an overage agreement entered into between the parties which provided for the payment of a further sum to the seller if development consent were obtained during the overage period. The court rejected the purchaser's argument that such consent had no utility unless the residential units were capable of being built in compliance with building regulations.

View case

Members
Gregory Banner QC

Practice areas
Real Estate

Courtwood Holdings SA v Woodley Properties Ltd & ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 14 Jul 2017

A proprietary injunction preventing a company from disposing, dealing with or diminishing the value of overage held on trust was varied to allow the company to pay surveyor's fees, incurred for negotiating an advance against the total overage ultimately due, from the money received as a result of the surveyor's successful negotiation.

View case

Courtwood Holdings SA v Woodley Properties LTD & 11 ORS (2016)

Judgment Date: 18 May 2016

It was not unarguable, nor was there no reasonable prospect of success in establishing, that there had been a breach of fiduciary duty and knowing receipt of profits arising out of that breach by a group of defendants with inter-related corporate vehicles in relation to a farm property development. The court refused their summary judgment and strike-out applications.

View case

Sandford Farm Properties Ltd v Wharf Land Investments Ltd & Douglas Maggs

Judgment Date: 26 Jun 2015

An order which permitted a liquidator to disclose the product of a private examination of a director under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.236 to the assignee of claims vesting in an insolvent company was varied to permit a second assignee to have disclosure. There was no evidence of any breach of the previous order and the situation could not be distinguished from one where the liquidator had sought to use the information himself.

View case

Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Douglas John Maggs (2014)

Judgment Date: 30 Oct 2014

The best indication of the value of an asset at any particular time was what someone would pay for it after reasonable attempts had been made to sell it. Evidence to the effect that nobody had been prepared to offer even £2 million for a property after six months' marketing by a well-known and reputable agent was more persuasive than expert evidence, obtained before the marketing process had begun, valuing the property at £3.35 million.

View case

Jackson & Buchanan (Liquidators of Harvest Finance Ltd) v Cannons Law Practice LLP & Ors (2013)

Judgment Date: 07 May 2013

An order under which a small firm of solicitors would deliver up documents and information required by liquidators to fulfil their duty under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.234 and s.236 could be drafted in a way that was not draconian in its demands on the resources of the firm, but it was needed to ensure that the information was supplied without undue delay and expense to the parties and the court.

View case

ECO3 Capital Ltd & Ors v Ludsin Overseas Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 23 Apr 2013

A judge had been entitled to find that those who had been involved in a scheme to purchase a plot of land were liable in deceit to a company which they had induced to invest in the scheme by concealing its true structure and the price being paid for the land.

View case

Mirador International LLC v MF Global UK Ltd (2012)

Judgment Date: 13 Dec 2012

The court held that the obligation in an introducing broker agreement for the broker on termination to pay sums due on all accounts already introduced, covered accounts where, although the account had been opened during the IBA contract period, the customer had been first introduced by the introducing broker prior to its commencement.

View case

Ludsin Overseas Ltd v ECO3 Capital Ltd & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 19 Jul 2012

A company which had lost £2 million by investing in a scheme involving the purchase of a plot of land succeeded in its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against several defendants who had been involved in the promotion or operation of the scheme.

View case

R H Ashcroft & Sons Ltd v Robert Daniel Macer Ashcroft & James Angus Ashcroft (Third Party) (2011)

Judgment Date: 28 Jul 2011

The court granted a declaration regarding the existence and termination of a management agreement governing the way in which a family-owned company operated its three farms.

View case

Bank of Scotland v Mazamal Hussain (2011)

Judgment Date: 25 Jul 2011

Summary judgment was granted to a bank to enforce a personal guarantee given by the owner of a property development company to secure an overdraft facility given to the company where the guarantee had clearly been entered into, the company had breached the overdraft facility terms and the bank had not given a collateral warranty to provide further funding.

View case

In The Matter OF EAP Securities Ltd v Adams Securities Ltd & Ors (2010)

Judgment Date: 01 Oct 2010

The court considered allegations that the affairs of a company had been conducted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of its shareholders generally and particularly to a minority shareholder, and found that it could not be said that they were without substance or had no real prospect of success and so it was appropriate for those matters to proceed to trial.

View case

Ahmed v Way2wine Ltd (2010)

Judgment Date: 21 Jan 2010

A master was entitled to refuse an application by a director, who had allegedly breached his fiduciary duties and dishonestly and knowingly caused excise duty points to occur resulting in a company suffering loss and damage, to join the liquidator of the company and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners as third parties on the basis of an allegation of a conspiracy against the director, as the facts did not support such an allegation.

View case

Alan Grisbrook v MGN Ltd (2009)

Judgment Date: 16 Oct 2009

An application to commit a newspaper publisher for breach of an undertaking to the court not to infringe a freelance photographer's copyright was refused as, although the publisher's actions had infringed copyright, the issue between the parties was not one which had featured in the actions leading to the consent order and committal proceedings were inappropriate.

View case

Jeremy French v Igor Flavio Cipolletta (2009)

Judgment Date: 15 May 2009

In an action brought by the liquidators of a company against a director pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.212, it was sufficiently clear from the points of claim that what was being alleged was that losses were suffered by the company during a period when it traded using money that should have been paid to the Crown. Whilst the liquidators could face difficulties in proving causation and in identifying and quantifying the precise losses that flowed from the director's alleged breach of duty, it could not be said that the liquidator's claim had no reasonable prospects of succeeding.

View case

Key-TV Ltd & Ors v Michael Anthony Ramsay (2008)

Judgment Date: 28 Feb 2008

The dishonest, unilateral alteration of a share agreement, which had the effect of ensuring that the defendants alone enjoyed the benefit of the exploitation of an invention, amounted to breach of contract and breach of their fiduciary duty as directors to act for a proper purpose and in the interests of the claimant company.

View case

Members
Gregory Banner QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

John David Curtis v Lockheed Martin UK Holdings Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 20 Feb 2008

Despite the risk of inconsistent decisions in proceedings in England and Italy, the English court declined to order a stay, on case management grounds, of an issue in the English proceedings pending determination of that issue in Italy.

View case

1) Crucial Music Corporation v Klondyke Management AG (2007)

Judgment Date: 25 Jul 2007

Under the Lugano Convention Art.5(1), once there was found to exist a relevant "obligation" having contractual effect on which a party was entitled to rely and for breach of which he was entitled to claim relief in contract, the place of performance of the obligation was the place where either, if it was executory, the obligation was to be performed; if it was negative, the obligation was to be honoured; if it was a warranty to an existing condition or state of affairs, the condition or state of affairs was required by the contract to exist.

View case

Members
Gregory Banner QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 22