Summary Arbitration proceedings brought in the name of a non-existent company were not a nullity since the mistake was one of misnomer and the proceedings had been authorised or ratified by the company's successor. Facts The claimant (S) sought a declaration that the fourth defendant (AMB) was a party to...

Summary A seller of land had a duty as trustee to continue to perform lease covenants between the contract of sale and completion. However, where there was a lessor's covenant, and the actions of the seller could not lead to forfeiture of the interest that was the subject matter of...

Summary It was unconscionable for the appellants to claim a beneficial interest to commercial properties purchased under a joint venture between their predecessors and the respondents where the appellants had made no payments to keep the properties afloat, contrary to the aims of the venture, and had only shown interest...

Summary One of the purposes of making a settlement of land on trust was to prejudice the interests of the Inland Revenue within the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423. Facts The applicant trustee in bankruptcy (H) applied to set aside a settlement made by the bankrupt as a sham or as a...

Summary Any assignments in the claimants' favour of alleged claims available to their former partnership and company were subject to compromise agreements that were in full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties. Facts The first, second and seventh defendants applied to strike out the claim, alternatively for...

Chancery Division, insolvency bankruptcy appeal. Acted as sole counsel for successful appellant.

Summary The Pensions Ombudsman should not interfere with decisions of trustees in relation to claims for benefits under the rules of their particular pension schemes unless the decision was perverse. In the circumstances, ombudsman was correct in holding that an employee was entitled to an incapacity pension under the company's...

Summary There was no common law election in the instant case between two inconsistent rights. Nor was there any basis on equitable principles to hold that the equitable doctrine of election applied where the defendant vendors of shares merely put forward an inconsistent contention without any express reservation or statement...