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 Munby

The State of Qatar v Banque Havilland [2021] EWHC 2172 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2021

David Mumford QC and Thomas Munby (with Hugo Leith of Brick Court) act for the State of Qatar in proceedings in the Commercial Court against Banque Havilland SA (the “Bank”).

View case

WWRT Limited v Tyschenko & Tyschenko [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 21 Apr 2021

The High Court considered the interplay between the Brussels Recast Regulation (“BRR”) and the approach of modified universalism to international insolvency proceedings in the course of continuing a worldwide freezing injunction, dismissing a jurisdiction challenge and ordering further disclosure and cross-examination in support of the worldwide freezing injunction. Although this will be one of the last ever cases concerning the BRR, it is an important reminder of the effect Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 when a finding of domicile is made and would be of particular significance should the United Kingdom accede to the Lugano Convention.

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

Lee Victor Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP (2018)

Judgment Date: 13 Nov 2018

Documents in client files held by the defendant solicitors in respect of a dissolved Cypriot company were protected by legal professional privilege where many years remained in which an application to restore the company to the register could be made. The policy considerations underlying the principle "once privileged, always privileged" compelled the court to maintain the privilege unless and until there was no prospect of the privilege being enforced by the person entitled to it.

View case

United Co Rusal Plc v Crispian Investments Ltd (2018)

Judgment Date: 14 Sep 2018

There was no reason to apply any special principles of interpretation to a shareholders' agreement which provided for a right of first refusal in the event of a disposal of shares by one of the investors, notwithstanding that the terms of the agreement in relation to the rights attached to shares differed from those in the company's articles of association.

View case

(1) Steven John North (2) Peter North v Geoffrey John Wilkinson & 8 Ors (2018)

Judgment Date: 02 Sep 2018

There were considerable difficulties in the way of a sole trader creating a trust of a share of his business, but even if it was possible the documents relied on in the instant case did not disclose the necessary intention to create a trust and properly construed imposed merely personal obligations.

View case

FBN Bank (Uk) Ltd v (1) Leaf Tobacco A Michailides Sa (2) Leaf Tobacco A Michailidea Ad (2) Mika Korca Sha (4) Alexandros Michailides (2017)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 2017

A bank was granted summary judgment on its claim against a group of companies involved in the tobacco trade and their majority shareholder for the full unpaid principal amount of an outstanding loan plus interest.

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

Nikolay Viktorovich Maximov v Open Joint Stock Co "Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat" (2017)

Judgment Date: 07 Jul 2017

The court refused an application to enforce an arbitration award made in Russia which had been later set aside by the Russian Commercial Court. An appeal to the Russian appeal court had also failed. Despite criticism of the Russian judgments, they were not so perverse that they could only be ascribed to bias against the claimant.

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

Re Allanfield Property Insurance Services Limited (2015)

Judgment Date: 17 Dec 2015

On an application under the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1 para.63 by the administrators of two insolvent insurance intermediaries, the court gave directions for the distribution of funds held in the companies' client accounts which were subject to the statutory trust regime in Chapter 5 of the Client Assets Sourcebook in the Financial Conduct Authority Handbook.

View case

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corp & 14 Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 12 Dec 2012

A Kazakhstan bank had not established that the English court was the most appropriate forum for resolution of disputes arising out of an alleged conspiracy to defraud it of £1.1 billion. Although two of the instruments used to further the fraud were expressly governed by English law, the essence of the dispute had very little connection with the domestic jurisdiction. The court also examined the availability of subrogated rights, causes of action in implied contract, and the jurisdictional gateway in CPR PD 6B.

View case

Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corp & 14 Ors (2011)

Judgment Date: 14 Dec 2011

(2011) Summary Despite the existence of English jurisdiction clauses in loan agreements with two of the defendants, the appropriate forum for a claim by a Kazakhstan bank against its former controlling shareholders and others was Kazakhstan rather than England.

View case

Cadogan Petroleum Plc & 9 Ors v Mark Tolly & 10 Ors (2011)

Judgment Date: 07 Sep 2011

On the facts as pleaded and in light of the decision in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (In Administration) (2011) EWCA Civ 347, (2011) Bus LR 1126, proprietary claims based on an allegation that a company group's former chief operating officer had accepted bribes or secret commissions in the course of various company transactions had no prospect of success.

View case

Irish Response Ltd v Direct Beauty Products & Simon Gook (2011)

Judgment Date: 21 Jan 2011

Freezing and search orders made against the defendants in a claim for inducing a breach of contract were discharged where the claimant had failed to demonstrate that it had a good arguable case in relation to that claim, there was no real risk of dissipation of the defendants' assets, and the claimant had acted in breach of the duty of fair presentation by failing to disclose certain correspondence.

View case

Cadogan Petroleum Plc v Mark Tolley (December 2009)

Judgment Date: 16 Dec 2009

The court ordered disclosure of parts of a settlement agreement necessary for the applicants to conduct their defences at trial, the disclosure did not extend to unlimited inspection of the agreement.

View case

Cadogan Petroleum PLC v Tolley (October 2009)

Judgment Date: 16 Oct 2009

An application was granted to use part of the transcript of a pre-trial cross-examination of a defendant, which was subject to an undertaking as to its use, in an action for breach of contract, breach of trust and conspiracy. The use of the material was, however, restricted if the defendant chose not to serve any evidence at trial, as it would then be inappropriate for the claimants to adduce his answers in cross-examination as part of their primary case.

View case

Belletti v Morici (2009)

Judgment Date: 24 Sep 2009

It would rarely if ever be appropriate or expedient for the English court to assume jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.25 to grant interim relief in support of substantive proceedings abroad where the relevant defendants had no connection with the jurisdiction and the relevant assets were not located in England.

View case

Members
Thomas Munby

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Photolibrary Group Ltd & Ors v Burda Senator Verlag GMBH (2008)

Judgment Date: 18 Jun 2008

On the evidence, it was clear that a contract for the supply of analogue photographic transparencies incorporated the terms of the delivery notes. The delivery notes provided that loss fees were payable in the event of loss and there was an established course of dealing to show that the defendants had accepted the terms, even though they had not signed the delivery notes.

View case

Members

Thomas Munby

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

Apvodedo NV v Terry Collins (2008)

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2008

It was not within the purview of the court, hearing a case on an application for summary judgment, to determine complex questions of law and fact arising out of the construction of a contractual clause contained in an exclusivity agreement; the case necessitated a trial whereby all the evidence and all the arguments could be aired and judicially considered.

View case