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

Warner Music & Sony Music v TuneIn (2019)

Judgment Date: 01 Nov 2019

A service enabling users, via a website or app, to access internet music radio stations around the world had communicated copyright works to the public contrary to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.20 where the radio stations were not licensed in the UK or elsewhere, where they were licensed for a territory other than the UK, or where they were premium stations created exclusively for the service.

View case

SL Claimants v Tesco PLC (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Oct 2019

An investor who held securities in dematerialised form through a chain of intermediaries had an equitable property right amounting to an "interest in securities" and was entitled to make a compensation claim under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.90A for losses incurred as a result of reliance on untrue or misleading information published by the issuer.

View case

Members
David Mumford QC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes

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

Glossop Cartons & Print Ltd v Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 11 Sep 2019

The purchaser of a commercial unit successfully established fraudulent misrepresentation where the vendor had deliberately failed to disclose that the electricity supply to the unit came through another unit, whose owner was entitled to cut off the supply, and had also told the purchaser that a problem with the unit's drainage was being addressed. Both misrepresentations were made to progress the sale at the price already agreed.

View case

Inmarsat Global Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2019]

Judgment Date: 30 Aug 2019

For the purposes of entitlement to capital allowances, the costs of launching leased satellites into orbit did not amount to the provision of machinery and plant for the purposes of the lessees trade. The Capital Allowances Act 1990 s.78(1) did not operate to deem that the satellites belonged to a company that had succeeded to the lessees business.

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

Homes Of England Ltd v Horsham Holdings Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 31 Jul 2019

The court granted an interim injunction preventing property developers from refinancing a development without first paying back a loan from a petitioning company, where there was a seriously arguable case that the developers were conducting business which was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner where flats had been taken off the market without being sold.

View case

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

Ingenious Games v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

The First-tier Tribunal had erred in concluding that limited liability partnerships involved in the production of films and computer games had carried on a trade for the purpose of being able to claim trading losses in their partnership returns, and had wrongly applied a partly objective test when considering whether the trade had been carried on with a view to a profit.

View case

Tugushev v Orlov [2019]

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

A claimant's failure to make due enquiry in relation to allegations forming a core piece of the defendant's defence, and his consequent failure to fairly represent the merits of that defence on a without notice application for a worldwide freezing order, had amounted to serious non-disclosure and the freezing order was set aside. The freezing order was not re-granted on the return hearing because there was no risk of the defendant dissipating his assets.

View case

European Film Bonds v Lotus Holdings LLC (2019)

Judgment Date: 25 Jul 2019

The court declined to stay proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.9 where an arbitration agreement in a film completion guarantee covered the issue whether completion and delivery of the film had occurred but not the issue between the parties as to whether in the circumstances completion and delivery was deemed to have occurred. The court declined to stay the proceedings in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction or on case management grounds.

View case

Ali Mahmoud Hassan Mohamed v Abdulmagid Breish (2019)

Judgment Date: 10 Jul 2019

Under the "one voice" doctrine, whereby if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office chose to recognise somebody as the executive authority of a foreign state then the court could not second-guess the recognition, the lawfulness or validity under foreign law of the acts of the recognised foreign government could not be challenged by submitting that that government was not lawfully constituted under the foreign law.

View case

Articles & Publications Complaints Procedure Facilities Instructing a Barrister News Cases Jas Bains v (1) Arunvill Capital Ltd (2) Hollbeach Solutions LLP (2019) Seminars Terms of Business Disclaime

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2019

On the proper interpretation of a financial consultancy agreement, a material breach by the consultant, consisting of an indication that he would no longer continue to perform the services specified by the contract, could only be remedied by his actually resuming performance. A mere assurance that he would do so was not sufficient to remedy the breach.

View case

Sarvenaz Fouladi v Darout Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Jun 2019

In a case concerning noise nuisance in which the claim against the first to third defendants succeeded, but the claim against the fourth defendant failed, a judge had been entitled to make a Bullock order requiring the unsuccessful defendants to meet the costs ordered to be paid by the claimant to the successful defendant. It had been reasonable for the claimant to join the fourth defendant as a party to the action because the first to third defendants had sought to blame the fourth defendant for the nuisance.

View case

Clochfaen Estate Ltd v Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Jun 2019

The carrying out of industrial works on agricultural land over which a claimant enjoyed various sporting, shooting and fishing rights was a substantial interference with those rights. However, the claimant had not exercised its rights for over 60 years and it was unlikely that it had suffered any pecuniary loss. Nominal damages were therefore awarded.

View case

Members

Practice areas
Real Estate

Malik v Malik : South Lodge Flats Ltd v Malik (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Jun 2019

Questions of whether a claim to possession of a flat would be defeated by a defence of adverse possession, and whether raising the adverse possession defence would be an abuse of process, were not suitable for summary determination on the available facts.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 19 Jun 2019

The High Court considered the liability of the majority directors of an insolvent company in respect of a grant of security to themselves for a loan made by them to the company and in respect of a distribution in specie of the company's shareholding in a subsidiary. The court determined that liability was fault-based (as opposed to strict liability), and considered the statutory requirements in relation to distributions, the degree of detail and formality required of interim accounts, and the duty to consider the interests of creditors.

View case

(1) John Anthony Popely (2) Andrew Popely v (1) Ronald Anthony Popely (2) Cosmos Trust Ltd (3) Casterbidge Properties Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Jun 2019

A "double derivative" claim by the beneficiaries of the trust which held a minority shareholding in a company failed where the claimants could not show that the defendant had acted as a de facto director of the company or that he had acted fraudulently.

View case

In The Matter of Sprintroom Ltd sub nom Edwin John Prescott v (1) Aristides George Potamianos (2) Sprintroom Ltd : Aristides George Potamianos v (1) Edwin John Prescott (2) Sprintroom Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Jun 2019

The Court of Appeal considered two appeals concerning a decision on an unfair prejudice claim brought by a minority shareholder.

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

1 2 3 4 5

Results 41 - 60 of 1731