Supreme Court rules on directors duty to act in interests of creditors – OUT-LAW.com

‘Company directors need to remain wary of their duty to consider the interests of creditors in certain circumstances, despite a new UK Supreme Court ruling that they are likely to welcome, experts have said.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2022

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

New Judgment: BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 – UKSC Blog

‘This appeal raised questions of considerable importance for company law. It provides the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to consider the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of company directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 5th October 2022

Source: ukscblog.com

Fiduciaries and the power of investment: when is an ethical investment not an investment? – Wilberforce Chambers

Posted August 16th, 2022 in charities, environmental protection, fiduciary duty, news, trusts by sally

‘The universe of socially responsible or “ethical” investments has been expanding exponentially in recent years.’

Full Story

Wilberforce Chambers, 18th July 2022

Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk

Case Comment: Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd [2021] UKSC 49 – UKSC Blog

‘In this post, Amy Wilkinson, a senior associate in CMS’ financial crime team, comments on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd [2021] UKSC 49. On 3 November 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and ruled in favour of Aquila Advisory Ltd. The decision concerns attribution of directors’ criminal actions and who should have priority over assets derived from their criminal schemes.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 4th May 2022

Source: ukscblog.com

The (Rebuttable) Presumption of Honesty – Hailsham Chambers

Posted November 2nd, 2021 in causation, fiduciary duty, loss of chance, negligence, news, set-off, solicitors by sally

‘The claim related to an opportunity to develop a Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) dealership in Wolverhampton (the Wolverhampton Opportunity), which the claimants alleged was lost due to the negligence of the defendant solicitors.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 8th October 2021

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Who manages the managers? – Tribunal appointed manager behaving badly – Nearly Legal

Posted August 31st, 2021 in agency, fiduciary duty, landlord & tenant, news, service charges, tribunals by sally

‘A cautionary tale of a Tribunal appointed manager behaving badly and a reminder that the appointed manager’s duty is to carry out what is in the order appointing them, and that they answer to the Tribunal as an officer of the Tribunal.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 30th August 2021

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Fiduciary duties beyond the fiduciary relationship – no clean break for directors – Littleton Chambers

‘In Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1457 (Ch) Mr Greenbank (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) was asked to determine whether, and if so to what extent, a director’s fiduciary duties survive the termination of the directorship. The essential part of the judgment on this point is at paragraph 391 to 410. The Defendants in this case were represented by Richard Leiper QC and Charlotte Davies, instructed by Clyde & Co LLP.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 24th June 2021

Source: littletonchambers.com

Court refuses to approve tainted fiduciary decision making (Schumacher v Clarke) – New Square Chambers

Posted February 18th, 2021 in charities, conflict of interest, fiduciary duty, news, trusts, wills by sally

‘The court was faced with a category 2 and 3 Public Trustee v Cooper application principally for the approval of a momentous decision. The court was initially asked to approve the entirety of a settlement reached between four trustees split into two camps but later asked to approve only the dispositive elements of the settlement. The settlement unusually resolved disputes between the trustees rather than between trustees and beneficiaries or third parties. The court was concerned with mutual allegations of inappropriate action as fiduciaries and the failure of both sides to manage conflicts of interest in arriving at a settlement. After stressing that such factors could impair the decision reached and which the court was asked to approve, the court refused its approval of part of the settlement. Written by James Saunders, barrister, at New Square Chambers.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 11th February 2021

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Court of Appeal: Expert was not under “fiduciary duty” to client – Litigation Futures

Posted January 14th, 2021 in conflict of interest, contracts, expert witnesses, fiduciary duty, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has overturned the first decision in England and Wales to hold that an expert witness owed a fiduciary duty to their client.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th January 2021

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Professional liability update: 2020 year in review – 4 New Square

‘In this review of the year, Helen Evans, Ben Smiley, Pippa Manby, and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square explain what the 2020 cases tell us, how the various strands of development interact, and what to watch out for as we go into 2021.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 5th January 2021

Source: www.4newsquare.com

High Court refuses to strike out solicitor’s surveillance harassment claim – Legal Futures

‘The High Court has refused to strike out claims of harassment brought by a solicitor and his wife over surveillance of them carried out at the instruction of a former client.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 30th November 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd – Hailsham Chambers

‘In Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2755, Lavender J (“the Judge”) has held that a client (“C”) did not give informed consent to the recovery from her of a sum by her solicitors (“solicitor”) over and above the costs recovered from the defendant in litigation (“D”). As a result, the solicitors were limited to the fixed costs which they recovered from D.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 23rd October 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Court orders costs repayment after client did not consent to deduction – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Fee-recovery lawyers say millions of clients could stand to benefit from a court judgment which reduced legal fees deducted from compensation.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 19th October 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

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