Defendant’s “potential exposure” not relevant to security for costs – Litigation Futures

Posted September 2nd, 2020 in costs, fiduciary duty, indemnities, insurance, law firms, news by tracey

‘A defendant’s potential exposure to paying the premium for after-the-event (ATE) insurance necessary to meet its demand for security for costs was “not relevant” to the question of security, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 1st September 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

New Judgment: Lehtimaki & Ors v Cooper [2020] UKSC 33 – UKSC Blog

Posted July 30th, 2020 in charities, company law, fiduciary duty, jurisdiction, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation is a charitable company with more than $4bn in assets helping children in developing countries. It was founded by Sir Christopher Hohn and Ms Jamie Cooper in 2002, but it became difficult to manage when their marriage broke down. These proceedings stem from the steps they took to resolve those difficulties. Specifically, they agreed that in exchange for a grant of $360 million to Big Win Philanthropy, a charity founded by Ms Cooper, she would resign as a member and trustee of CIFF.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 29th July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Case Preview: Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper – UKSC Blog

Posted July 6th, 2020 in appeals, charities, fiduciary duty, jurisdiction, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this post, James Warshaw, an associate in the Dispute Resolution team at CMS, previews the decision which is awaited in the matter of Lehtimaki and Ors v Cooper, which concerns whether the court has jurisdiction to direct members of a charitable company on how to exercise their powers absent a breach of fiduciary duty.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 3rd July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

De Sena v Notaro [2020] EWHC 1031 (Ch): The family, the demerger and the expert who wasn’t an expert – Hailsham Chambers

‘The case arose out of a corporate demerger which took place in relation to a family owned company, S Notaro Holdings (“Holdings”), on 28 April 2011. The First Claimant (C1), and the First Defendant (D1) were siblings. Prior to the demerger, they were both shareholders in and directors of Holdings. Neither were majority shareholders. D1 held 43.75% of the shares in Holdings, and C1 held 31.25%. In the demerger, C1 gave up her shares in Holdings in exchange for some assets of Holdings or its subsidiaries being transferred to the Second Claimant (C2), a company formed for that purpose, owned and controlled by C1.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Court of Appeal upholds law firm’s Chinese wall – Legal Futures

Posted May 12th, 2020 in fiduciary duty, injunctions, law firms, news by sally

‘A law firm acting for different defendants against the same claimant did not owe that claimant a true fiduciary duty, and so did not have to prove its Chinese Wall worked, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 11th May 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Is there property in an (expert) witness? (A company v X and others) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted April 22nd, 2020 in chambers articles, expert witnesses, fiduciary duty, injunctions, news by sally

‘A company v X and others [2020] EWHC 809 (TCC): At the return date hearing of an ex parte injunction, the court was required to consider whether the general principle that there is no property in a witness applied to expert witnesses. That question was dependent on whether an expert witness owed a specific fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to the instructing client. The court decided that this was a case where a fiduciary duty was owed, that the duty of undivided loyalty extended to the experts’ group companies, and there was a potential conflict of interest. The injunction was maintained pending trial or other resolution of the dispute.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

High Court: Experts owe clients “fiduciary duty of loyalty” – Litigation Futures

Posted April 16th, 2020 in confidentiality, expert witnesses, fiduciary duty, news, privilege by sally

‘Expert witnesses owe a fiduciary obligation of loyalty to their client and it is not satisfied simply by putting in place measures to preserve confidentiality and privilege, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th April 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Imposing Quistclose trusts—knowledge, not notice, as the golden rule (Goyal v Florence Care Ltd) – New Square Chambers

Posted April 2nd, 2020 in chambers articles, delay, equity, fiduciary duty, joint ventures, news, solicitors by sally

‘Goyal emphasises the importance of knowledge over notice in generating a Quistclose Trust. Solicitors and commercial fund managers should be alert to the possible implications arising from the allocation and management of communications received, mindful that attributed knowledge may still suffice in the right circumstances. Goyal provides an important reminder of the gateway function of an order for an account through which substantive remedies can be accessed. A party’s entitlement to an account following breach of fiduciary duty should not be circumscribed by judicial assumptions that little may be gained from the exercise, nor by considerations of the delay between relevant events and trial. An account may prove to be fruitless but a claimant should be entitled to find this out for themselves.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 23rd March 2020

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 11 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The Appellant was a corporate and investment bank (the “Bank”). On 7 May 2015, it entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) as the seller of a 23.8% shareholding in an Indonesian company traded on the London Stock Exchange. The Respondent solicitors, (“Ashurst”), had acted for the First Defendant, the counterparty buyer under the Agreement (“ACE”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 5th March 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Fraudulent Non-Disclosure Claim in Property Joint Venture Case Fails – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 19th, 2020 in chambers articles, conspiracy, disclosure, fiduciary duty, fraud, joint ventures, news by sally

‘The claimant (Mr Russell) was one of four individuals involved in a joint venture property development business. The parties entered into a joint venture agreement which obliged them to act with good faith towards each other, in certain limited respects. Mr Russell departed the business pursuant to the terms of a settlement deed. Shortly after that deed was executed, the remaining parties entered into an attractive development project that Mr Russell claimed the other parties did not tell him about, or give him the opportunity to participate in. Mr Russell claimed he was wrongfully excluded by the dishonest actions of the other joint venturers. The claims alleged were: (a) breach of fiduciary duty; (b) breach of the express/implied terms of the joint venture agreement; (c) fraudulent non-disclosure; (d) unlawful means conspiracy. As a result of the terms of the settlement deed, Mr Russell needed to establish fraud or dishonesty to succeed.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 13th February 2020

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Push Payment Fraud: Singularis v Daiwa – Case Analysis – Forum Chambers

Posted November 19th, 2019 in banking, contracts, fiduciary duty, fraud, news by sally

‘In Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER, Steyn J held that it was an implied term of the contract between a bank and a customer that the bank would use reasonable care and skill in and about executing the customer’s order. This term would be breached if the bank executed the order knowing it to be dishonestly given, or shut its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acted recklessly in failing to make such enquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make. In order to comply with that term, the bank should refrain from executing a customer’s order if and for so long as it was put on inquiry by having reasonable grounds for believing that the order was an attempt to misappropriate funds.’

Full Story

Forum Chambers, 19th November 2019

Source: www.forumchambers.com

High Court backs former Claims Direct boss over £21m claim – Legal Futures

Posted September 4th, 2019 in breach of trust, claims management, fiduciary duty, fraud, news by sally

‘Colin Poole, the former chief executive of Claims Direct and a struck-off solicitor, has won a High Court battle with shareholders over an alleged £21m debt.’

Full Story

Legal Futrues, 4th September 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Court strikes out “incomprehensible” claim against law firm – Legal Futures

‘The High Court has struck out a claim for professional negligence, breach of contract and fiduciary duty made against a central London law firm which was based on “incomprehensible pleadings”.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 1st August 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Diversion of a Business Opportunity: Recovery Partners & anor v Mr Rukhadze & ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm) – Blackstone Chambers

‘The High Court recently had reason to consider liability where individuals, who owe fiduciary duties to a company, divert for themselves a business opportunity.’

Full Story

Blackstone Chambers, 25th February 2019

Source: www.employeecompetition.com

Howard Grossman: Northampton Town ‘missing millions’ developer banned – BBC News

Posted February 5th, 2019 in accounts, company directors, fiduciary duty, insolvency, loans, news, sport by tracey

‘A property developer has been banned from running companies for 10 years after failing to provide accounting records to explain more than £5m missing from a football club loan.’

Full Story

BBC News, 5th February 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Letters to art experts not covered by litigation privilege – Litigation Futures

‘Letters between Sotheby’s and two art experts concerning the authenticity of an Old Master painting sold for over $11m are not covered by litigation privilege, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 27th November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn – Supreme Court

Posted November 16th, 2018 in equity, estoppel, fiduciary duty, forfeiture, lectures, rectification, solicitors by tracey

‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’

Full speech

Supreme Court, 8th November 2018

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Help! Somebody has stolen my client list – Henderson Chambers

Posted August 9th, 2018 in confidentiality, copyright, database right, fiduciary duty, news, pleadings by sally

‘Companies can invest significant sums in the creation and maintenance of their client lists. Unsurprising, their client lists are often closely guarded. But what if protections fail? Under the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, firms can bring actions against those that access and download their client list (for instance, a former employee). The wronged party can demand the return or destruction of the confidential information, an injunction to prevent its use and damages for any losses.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, July 2018

Source: 3yf6pp3bqg8c3rycgf1gbn9w-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lehtimäki v The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1605 – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted August 6th, 2018 in charities, company law, fiduciary duty, news by sally

‘Mark Mullen appeared for HM Attorney General before the Court of Appeal in Lehtimäki v The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) and others [2018] EWCA Civ 1605.

In the claim, the claimant (‘CIFF’), a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity, sought approval of the making of a grant of $360 million to a new charity established by one of its directors.’

Full Story

Radcliffe Chambers, 6th July 2018

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Pair were shadow directors but didn’t breach duties, says court – OUT-LAW.com

Posted May 9th, 2018 in company directors, fiduciary duty, news by tracey

‘Two men were found to be shadow directors of an insolvent property development company and so did owe the company fiduciary duties but their behaviour did not breach those duties, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 8th May 2018

Source: www.out-law.com