Summary "Hope value" was not a permissible element in valuations under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sch.6 or Sch.13 and should not be included in the price payable for collective enfranchisement or lease extensions. Facts The freeholders (C and W) appealed against the decision of the Lands...

Unfair Prejudice. Instructed as junior counsel.

Summary Liquidators had been entitled to postpone and later cancel the payment of dividends to creditors even though they had already declared those dividends and provided the cheques as, following the declaration, they had become aware of a pending application by another creditor. Facts The claimant company (L), as assignee...

Summary A claimant had not presented a bankruptcy petition maliciously where he had reasonable and probable cause due to a defendant's failure to repay a debt when he had made various promises to do so and despite the service of a statutory demand. Facts The defendant (V) in a debt...

Summary There was nothing as a matter of law or fairness that prevented a respondent in an appeal against a decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal from arguing for a premium payable for the grant of a new underlease which was higher than had originally been contended. Facts The appellant...

Summary A property development company was entitled to various heads of relief arising out of the payment of £1 million to the first defendant as a result of his fraudulent misrepresentations that it was a deposit that he would return if he did not procure for the company a contract for...

Summary Where alcohol removed from a tax warehouse had never left the United Kingdom excise duty was payable by the owner of the goods as the person who had guaranteed payment of the duty. In the circumstances the owner had not caused the occurrence of the excise duty point or...

Summary A security was not a "relevant discounted security" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1996 Sch.13 para.3 because it was a "practical certainty" that the terms upon which it might possibly be redeemed at a deep gain would never occur. Facts The appellant tax payers (X) appealed against amendments...

Summary A claimant had not acted unreasonably when handling its claim for repayment of input tax and it was therefore entitled to interest on the amount of the repayment in accordance with the Value Added Tax Act 1994 s.84(8) and it was appropriate to award interest at the same rate as...