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 Siward Atkins

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

(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

Christopher Paul Reynard v Nigel Fox (2018)

Judgment Date: 08 Aug 2018

The court refused a bankrupt's application for permission to bring a claim against his trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.304, where there was no reasonably meritorious cause of action and where the proposed application raised issues which had already been decided against the bankrupt in an application under s.303.

View case

Michael Tuke v JD Classics Ltd (Formerly JD Classics Holdings Ltd) (2018)

Judgment Date: 16 Mar 2018

Where a claimant had served a notice to prove after the original deadline for service of witness statements, the notice was out of time, pursuant to CPR r.32.19(2)(a). The fact that a judge struck out the bulk of the witness statements which had been served and set a fresh deadline for the service of replacement statements did not have the effect of setting aside the claimant's deemed acceptance of the documents' authenticity which occurred once the original deadline passed.

View case

Christopher Paul Reynard v Nigel Fox (2018)

Judgment Date: 08 Mar 2018

A bankrupt's claim for breach of contract and negligence against his trustee in bankruptcy was struck out under CPR r.3.4(2), on the grounds that the claim form disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and that it was an abuse of the court's process.

View case

Koza Ltd & Anor v Akcil & Ors (2018)

Judgment Date: 26 Feb 2018

The test for whether an alternative means of service of proceedings should be permitted under CPR r.6.15 in a Hague Service Convention case was whether there was a "good reason"; that did not require exceptional, special circumstances. A UK company was permitted to serve proceedings on an organ of the Turkish state via UK solicitors' offices where that firm acted for defendants who were closely associated with the Turkish organ, although it did not represent the organ itself.

View case

Darius Khakshouri v (1) Anthony Jimenez (2) Kevin Cash (2017)

Judgment Date: 20 Dec 2017

When calculating damages for deceit, the measure of damages was the loss flowing directly from the claimant's reliance on the deceitful statement. However, the court did not always have to take the date of reliance as the starting point. Rigidity was to be eschewed and, depending on the facts, it might be necessary to compute damages by reference to a later date.

View case

(1) Koza Ltd (2) Hamdi Akin Ipek v Mustafa Akcil & 5 Ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 16 Nov 2017

Where a company whose control was disputed had undertaken not to dispose of funds "other than in the ordinary and proper course of business", expenditure for an arbitration by the company's alleged owner before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes was not within the undertaking. The expenditure would not be in the ordinary course of business, as the authenticity of the owner's share purchase agreement was open to doubt, and in any event it did not include a qualifying investment giving rise to ICSID jurisdiction.

View case

Ivey v Genting Casinos (T/A Crockfords Club) (2017)

Judgment Date: 25 Oct 2017

The subjective element of the test for dishonesty in R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran) [1982] Q.B. 1053 did not correctly represent the law and directions based on it should no longer be given. When dishonesty was in question, the fact-finding tribunal had first to ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The question whether the conduct was honest or dishonest was then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

View case

Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) (2017)

Judgment Date: 25 Oct 2017

Club) (2017) Summary The subjective element of the test for dishonesty in R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran) [1982] Q.B. 1053 did not correctly represent the law and directions based on it should no longer be given. When dishonesty was in question, the fact-finding tribunal had first to ascertain the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The question whether the conduct was honest or dishonest was then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

View case

(1) Koza Ltd (2) Hamdi Akin Ipek v Mustafa Akcil & 5 Ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 18 Oct 2017

The English courts had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by an English company against its Turkish parent company. The proceedings were principally concerned with the validity of decisions of an organ of the English company, and therefore fell within Regulation 1215/2012 art.24(2).

View case

(1) Koza Ltd (2) Hamdi Akin Ipek v Mustafa Akcil & 5 ors (2016)

Judgment Date: 21 Dec 2016

The High Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by an English company against its Turkish parent concerning the validity of amendments to its articles of association and of notices served by the parent under the Companies Act 2006 s.303 and s.305. The claim fell within Regulation 1215/2012 art.24 and, by serving a counterclaim that went beyond the claim, the parent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court.

View case

Phillip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) (2016)

Judgment Date: 03 Nov 2016

A casino had been entitled to withhold a gambler's winnings on the basis that he had breached the implied term in their contract that he should not cheat. Although the gambler had believed that his technique in a card game was honest, his view of his conduct was not determinative. His conduct fell within the ordinary meaning of cheating. The court's members disagreed as to the mens rea of cheating contrary to the Gambling Act 2005 s.42.

View case

Lord Chancellor v John Blavo & MSP Capital (2016)

Judgment Date: 28 Jan 2016

A freezing order was continued against a solicitor who had been the managing director of a firm which had allegedly fraudulently claimed legal aid for thousands of cases. The firm had been liquidated, but the solicitor had signed a deed of guarantee and indemnity in respect of the firm's legal aid contracts and the court was satisfied that, based on the alleged dishonesty and a transfer of property, there was a real risk that assets would be dissipated in order to frustrate a future judgment.

View case

Hampton Capital Ltd v Elite Performance Cars (2015)

Judgment Date: 09 Jul 2015

A company in administration recovered sums paid to third parties by its driving force, who appeared to have been a con-man. Its administrators' applications for orders under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.238 in respect of those sums, made on the basis that the payments were transactions at an undervalue, failed because there had not been "transactions" between the company and the third parties.

View case

Philip Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) (2014)

Judgment Date: 08 Oct 2014

In the first case since the coming into force of the Gambling Act 2005, an English court had to determine whether the conduct of a party to a gambling contract amounted to cheating for the purposes of the civil law. The use of a croupier as an innocent agent in circumstances where she had not realised the consequences of her actions constituted cheating.

View case

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors (2013)

Judgment Date: 16 Jan 2013

An order that a Kazakhstan law firm pay interim costs stayed on condition that it pay that sum into court immediately, otherwise its pending appeal would be stayed. It was also just for the firm to pay a sum into court as security for the respondents' costs of the appeal.

View case

Members
Siward Atkins QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Quick Draw LLP v Global Live Events LLP & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2012

A limited liability partnership which had provided a bridging loan to finance a concert was entitled to recover the full amount due from the concert organiser. Under the terms of a debenture, the lender was entitled to existing and future copyright in sound and film recordings of the concert as security for the loan.

View case

In The Matter Of Frontsouth (Witham) Ltd (In Administration) (2011)

Judgment Date: 30 Jun 2011

The Insolvency Rules 1986 r.7.55 could not be used to cure a fundamental defect in the appointment of administrators such as a failure to obtain the consents required by statute for the extension of the appointment.

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 34