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

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

In the Matter of The Competition and Markets Authority v Michael Christopher Martin [2020] EWHC 1751 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2020

Pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.9A(1), once a court had found that a director's conduct was such as to make him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, it had to make a disqualification order. Even though disqualification engaged ECHR art.8, the word "must" in s.9A(1) meant that the making of an order was mandatory.

View case

LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd (In Administration), Re Lehman Brothers Holdings Plc (In Administration)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2020

The court determined the priority of competing claims under subordinated loan agreements and subordinated loan notes in the administration of two Lehman Brothers companies in which the claims of unsecured unsubordinated creditors had all been paid.

View case

Singularis Holdings Limited (in official liquidation) v Chapelgate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Limited (2020)

Judgment Date: 22 Jun 2020

Singularis Holdings Limited has succeeded in its claim to retain US$15 million from the proceeds of litigation against Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd (“Daiwa”). This sum was claimed by the Defendant litigation funder, ChapelGate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Limited (“ChapelGate”), under the terms of its litigation funding agreement with Singularis.

View case

Members

89 Holland Park Management Ltd v Sophie Louise Hicks (2020)

Judgment Date: 16 Jun 2020

A company with the benefit of a restrictive covenant was entitled to refuse consent to development of a neighbouring plot on aesthetic grounds. Company shareholders, who were leaseholders of flats in the property of which the company was the freeholder, were also entitled to enforce the covenant.

View case

European Film Bonds A/S & other v Lotus Holdings LLC & others [2020]

Judgment Date: 11 May 2020

The High Court has given judgment in favour of film completion guarantors (represented by Edmund Cullen QC) who have successfully avoided a potential liability of over €18 million in what is said to have been one of the largest film completion guarantee claims to have been submitted.

View case

Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd & Cho Kwai Chee (2020)

Judgment Date: 01 Apr 2020

The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against the discharge of a Black Swan freezing injunction for want of jurisdiction over the second respondent, Dr Cho. In doing so, the Court of Appeal affirmed the applicability of the Privy Council’s judgment in Mercedes-Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284 in the Territory of the Virgin Islands: in short, it is not possible for proceedings seeking only freezing order relief against a foreign respondent to be served on that respondent out of the jurisdiction.

View case

Kazakhstan Kagazy PLC v Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus & Ors (2020)

Judgment Date: 25 Mar 2020

he court declined to exercise its discretion under CPR r.3.1(7) to reconsider or vary various orders concerning the failure of a party in relation to information and pleadings, as the discovery of an order made in another jurisdiction was not a material change of circumstances and there had been no misstatement to the court about the existence of the order.

View case

United Trust Bank Ltd v Konstantinos Diamantopoulos (2020)

Judgment Date: 19 Mar 2020

Summary judgment was granted on a claim to enforce a personal guarantee in respect of a loan secured on a property where an assurance relied on by the guarantor, that the guarantee would not be enforced unless there was a shortfall after the property was sold, was not a clear promise.

View case

Popely v Popely (2020)

Judgment Date: 19 Mar 2020

The court considered the principles upon which a costs order might be made against a third party where it was said that he was the driving force behind the litigation, and further considered whether it was appropriate to make an order for costs against a trustee company which was a party to the proceedings, but did not wish to take, and did not take, any active part in them. Timothy Harry appeared for the trustee company which successfully resisted an order for costs being made against it. There has been no previous authority which has directly dealt with the issue of whether a trustee, joined as a necessary party to proceedings, but which takes no active part in them, can be held liable for the costs of them.

View case

Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors v (1) NatWest Markets Plc (2) Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Ltd (2020)

Judgment Date: 10 Mar 2020

A claim brought by insolvent companies against a bank and its subsidiary for dishonest assistance and knowing participation in fraudulent trading, via the actions of its traders, was established where the evidence showed that the traders, contrary to their evidence, had been aware at all times that VAT was chargeable on their EU allowance carbon credit trades. Their evidence was untrue, implausible and designed to falsely suggest that there was no reason why they should have made the connection between the vast increase in trade that they were witnessing and the possibility that it was connected to VAT fraud.

View case

HMRC v Smith & Nephew (2020)

Judgment Date: 03 Mar 2020

Michael Gibbon QC (leading James Rivett QC of Pump Court Tax Chambers) has appeared for HMRC in an important test-case central aspects of the loan relationships code, in particular the “fairly represents” provision, and the proper treatment of exchange gains and losses.

View case

Members
Michael Gibbon QC

Practice areas
Tax

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

In The Matter of Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd (In Liquidation) Sub Nom Official Reciever v (1) Johannes Christian Martinus Augustinus Marie Deuss (2) Timothy Ulrich (2020)

Judgment Date: 27 Jan 2020

The Insolvency and Companies Court provided guidance on the purpose of applications for public examination under s.133 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the extent of the Court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, the role of the Court on an application for directions and the role that the creditor requesting the examination plays in a disputed application. The Court also determined that the Official Receiver did not have the power to increase the deposit provided by the requesting creditor under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.7.101(2). Caley Wright appeared for the requesting creditor.

View case

Alibrahim v Asturion Foundation (2020)

Judgment Date: 24 Jan 2020

The Court of Appeal has provided authoritative guidance on the abuse of process known as “warehousing” in its first judgment on the subject for almost 20 years. David Mumford QC and James Kinman appeared for the successful respondent.

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

Derby Teaching Hospitals v Derby CC & Charity Commission (2019)

Judgment Date: 12 Dec 2019

12 December 2019 wasn’t merely a momentous day for the nation politically, it also saw the High Court hand down judgment on one of the year’s most interesting charity cases.

View case

Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 09 Dec 2019

In this case the court was asked to construe two provisions that are extremely common in commercial leases; a “conclusive certification” clause and a “no set-off” clause. The question for the court was: could the landlord obtain summary judgment for service charge arrears against its tenant in reliance on the two clauses? The court’s reasoning is of interest to both real property practitioners and commercial litigators generally.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Real Estate

Griffith v Gourgey (2019)

Judgment Date: 22 Nov 2019

In proceedings concerning two petitions alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct, the court emphasised the importance of petitions being fully and properly pleaded. However, the rigour of the approach described in In the Matter of Tecnion Investments Limited [1985] 6 WLUK 68 was less important where the court directed points of claim and points of defence under the Companies (Unfair Prejudice Applications) Proceedings Rules 1986 r.5. In such cases, the petition had to specify the grounds, but need not be fully particularised.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 07 Nov 2019

Where a liquidator had taken office in order to pursue a claim against the company's directors at a time when there were no other material assets in the company, and the firm in which he was a partner had funded an early stage of that claim, the firm could not be regarded as a pure funder facilitating access to justice when it came to establishing costs liability after the claim failed. Although the appointment of liquidator was a personal one, his firm stood to gain financially from the liquidator's remuneration and from the uplift it had negotiated. Accordingly, the firm had a sufficient interest in the proceedings to warrant characterisation as a commercial funder and a real party for the purposes of the third-party costs jurisdiction.

View case

1 2 3 4 5

Results 21 - 40 of 1731