Bank Notes

  • Home
  • News
  • Administration
  • Agency and Mandate
  • Bonds and Notes
  • Cheques and bills
  • Companies
  • Confidentiality
  • Consumer credit
  • Contract
  • Conversion
  • Data Protection
  • Default and demand
  • Documentary credits
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Financial Services Regulation
  • Fraud and economic torts
  • Guarantees and indemnities
  • Hire and asset finance
  • Injunctions
  • Insurance
  • Joint and vicarious liability
  • Limitation
  • Mistake
  • Money Laundering
  • Negligence and Advisory Liability
  • Partnership
  • Procedure
  • Receivership
  • Security
  • Trust and Accessory Liability
  • Unjust enrichment


February 2024


23/2/24

THG PLC v ZEDRA TRUST COMPANY (JERSEY) LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 158

Unfair prejudice petitions are subject to a 6 year limitation period under s.9 Limitation Act 1980 where the only relief sought is the payment of money, whether liquidated or unliquidated [129].


23/2/24 

DERMA MED LTD v ALLY [2024] EWCA Civ 175

Explains principles requiring full and frank disclosure on injunction applications [29].    Here the injunction should not have been discharged because the failures of disclosure were not deliberate and were relatively insubstantial.  The judge below should have considered whether some measure short of setting aside the injunction could be used to mark the failure.


22/2/24

PALLADIAN PARTNERS LP v THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA [2024] EWCA Civ 139

Considers principles for imposing a condition under CPR r.52.6(2)(b) that the appellant pay money to be held in escrow pending determination of an appeal.


8/2/24

YM (CARE PROCEEDINGS) (CLARIFICATION OF REASONS) [2024] EWCA Civ 71

The court gave guidance [90] as to when and how counsel may properly seek clarification of a trial judge’s reasons.


1/2/24

WALKER v IRWIN MITCHELL LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 53

Solicitors offering advice on a helpline had no retainer with the caller but had owed the caller a duty of care.  The firm had only given high-level preliminary advice which was accurate and the scope of its duty had not required it to give wider-ranging advice about steps the caller might take to protect her position before issuing proceedings to ensure that a tour operator notified its insurer so as to safeguard against the risk of unenforceability of any judgment later obtained if the tour operator became insolvent.