January 2019
31/1/19
ASSETCO v GRANT THORNTON LLP [2019] EWHC 150 (Comm)
Damages awarded for auditors’ breaches of duty. Considers “loss of a chance” principles in assessing damages, the recoverability of trading losses resulting from a pattern of dishonest conduct, whether benefits must be brought into account, contributory negligence and relief from liability under s1157 Companies Act 2006.
29/1/19
McCALLUM-TOPPIN v McCALLUM-TOPPIN [2019] EWHC 46 (Ch)
On the facts, payment of excessive remuneration to directors and lack of good faith in making a decision to pay dividends was unfairly prejudicial conduct for the purpose of a petition under s 994 Companies Act 2006.
23/1/19
DOYLE v PRA GROUP (UK) LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 12
A cause of action for repayment following default under a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, only arises after the time specified in the default notice for remedying the default has expired, not when the default occurs.
15/1/19
RAIFFEISEN BANK INTERNATIONAL AG v ASIA COAL ENERGY VENTURES LTD [2019] EWHC 3 (Comm)
Instructions given to solicitors were privileged. Advice shared with third parties would only be privileged if shared on a confidential basis.
15/1/19
AIRWAYS PENSION SCHEME TRUSTEE v FIELDER [2019] EWHC 29 (Ch)
Considers principles applicable in a Beddoe application by trustees to ensure they would be entitled to an indemnity from trust funds for their costs of an appeal.
15/1/19
HUGHES JARVIS LTD v SEARLE [2019] EWCA Civ 1
A judge had wrongly committed a party for contempt and struck out a case on grounds that a fair trial was not possible because the party had wrongly discussed the case during an adjournment and whilst giving evidence. The obvious sanction open to a judge who discovers that a witness has communicated with some third party about his evidence during the course of the trial is to ascertain what was discussed and, if appropriate, to discount or give no weight to the evidence. The court considered principles applicable to striking out on grounds that a fair trial is not possible [43]. The incident had not justified the exercise of the power.
15/1/19
McDONALD v ROSE [2019] EWCA Civ 4
Summarises principles for applying for extensions of time in connection with permission to appeal [21]. If a party seeks an adjournment of a decision hearing in order to have more time to make an application for permission to appeal, they should also seek an extension of time for filing the appellant's notice, otherwise they risk running out of time before the permission decision is made. The 21 days continue to run from the decision date, and an adjournment of the decision hearing does not automatically extend time. On the facts time had expired and an extension of time was refused applying usual considerations for relief from sanctions and because the appeal did not have a real prospect of success. It turned on issues of reliability of witness evidence where the appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions.
11/1/19
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v GIAMBRONE & LAW [2019] EWHC 34 (QB)
Reviews principles for awarding non-party costs under s 51 Senior Courts Act 1981. A non-party costs order was made against an insurer whose funding was held to have enabled the claimant to spend twice as much pursuing claims than they would otherwise have done.
11/1/19
DEANSGATE 123 LLP v WORKMAN [2019] EWHC 2 (Ch)
Considers applicable principles of abuse of process in circumstances where it is alleged that a claim should have been brought in earlier related proceedings [23]. On the facts it was not an abuse to make an application to set aside a transaction under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors) after the court had held the in earlier proceedings that the transaction was valid and effective. Although there would be a degree of overlap in the evidence, the issues were not the same and the applicants had given sufficiently early indications of their intention to pursue the applications under s 423.