Supreme Court: use of corporate vehicles did not avoid limitation exception –

‘Company directors were said to be responsible for assets despite their use of corporate vehicles, the Supreme Court has ruled (12-page / 157KB PDF). The ruling means that a six year limitation period stopping liquidators taking legal action against the directors does not apply. This case will impact future misfeasance actions. Director and officer indemnity insurers should take note of this decision as it confirms that the English courts are unwilling to accept the six-year limitation defence for actions against directors following the disposal of company assets in breach of fiduciary duty for economic gain.’

Full Story, 23rd March 2018


FCA v Grout [2018] EWCA Civ 71: Anonymous or Synonymous? – 4 New Square

Posted March 16th, 2018 in financial regulation, identification, news, third parties by sally

‘The Court of Appeal confirms the restrictive approach to third party rights under FCA Notices adopted by the Supreme Court in Macris v FCA [2017] UKSC 19.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 6th February 2018


High Court makes third-party costs order against UKIP for blocking settlement of libel claim – Litigation Futures

Posted February 20th, 2018 in costs, defamation, enforcement, news, political parties, third parties by sally

‘The High Court has made a third-party costs order against UKIP, after the party took a “political” decision to block the settlement of a libel claim against one of its MEPs.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 20th February 2018


Pre-action disclosure of insurance policies – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) serves as a reminder of the court’s approach to the rules on pre-action disclosure and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 act).’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 8th January 2018


Detecting assets in financial proceedings (Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan) – Family Law

Posted December 19th, 2017 in divorce, family courts, financial provision, news, sham transactions, third parties by sally

‘Family analysis: In Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan the court was concerned with assertions that assets belonging to the husband were held for him by a nominee, related commercial proceedings and arguments as to sham. Michael Chapman, partner, and Holly Tootill, senior associate, both from JMW, who acted for the wife in this case, answer some questions on this complicated and extensive decision.’

Full Story

Family Law, 18th December 2017


Not with a Whisper but a Bang: the new insurance laws in a Professional Indemnity Context – Hailsham Chambers

‘The changes of last August and the impending Enterprise Act 2016 changes for May of next year will transform the way we have to look at insurance contracts generally and, if our insurer clients’ underwriting departments have not substantially rewritten their proposal forms and policy documents, we can anticipate a few years of ongoing law making.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 3rd November 2017


Autumn Newsletter – Falcon Chambers

– Prescriptive easements – a glass half-full: out with the negative; in with the positive 10

– Keeping the Title Clean: Unwanted Notices and Restrictions 12

– Estoppel in Pre-Contractual Negotiations 15

– The Curse of the Freebie 17

– Voidable and no Mistake 20

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, November 2017


Fraud may justify ‘collateral use’ of documents in multiple sets of civil proceedings, court rules –

‘The “strong public interest” in pursuing claims for fraud, bribery and corruption may justify allowing the use of documents obtained in one set of legal proceedings in a different set of proceedings, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story, 3rd November 2017


Chudley v Clydesdale: identifying the body – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted October 23rd, 2017 in banking, contracts, fraud, news, third parties by sally

‘A recent Commercial Court case, Chudley v Clydesdale Bank plc has provided a rare comment on the application of the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) and, in particular, on how you decide whether the contract adequately identifies the third party so as to allow them to enforce the contract.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 20th October 2017


Electoral Commission urged to reconsider view on Vote Leave spending – The Guardian

Posted October 2nd, 2017 in elections, judicial review, news, referendums, third parties by sally

‘The Electoral Commission is to be challenged in court to reopen its investigation into £625,000 of spending that eventually reached a digital marketing company during the EU referendum last year.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th September 2017


Third party arbitration funding here to stay, says expert, as major report published –

Posted September 21st, 2017 in arbitration, dispute resolution, international law, news, reports, third parties by sally

‘Dispute resolution bodies must develop an understanding of the issues raised by third party funding as the role it plays in international arbitration continues to grow.’

Full Story, 21st September 2017


Duty of care in genomic medicine: who is liable? – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted September 4th, 2017 in doctors, duty of care, genetic testing, medical ethics, news, third parties by sally

‘Clinical Genetics is a field of medicine concerned with the probability of an indvidual’s condition having an hereditary basis. The journal Medical Law International has just published an article about the scope of potential duties of care owed by specialists in this field to people with heritable diseases. The authors draw out the features of genomic medicine that open the door to new liabilities; a potential duty owed by clinicians to third party family members, and another legal relationship that may be drawn between researchers and patients.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd September 2017


Supreme Court clarifies test for imposing conditions on grant of permission to appeal –

Posted August 7th, 2017 in appeals, company law, news, shareholders, Supreme Court, third parties by sally

‘A recent decision by the Supreme Court has clarified the circumstances in which the court will be able to impose a financial requirement as a condition of the grant of permission to appeal, an expert has said.’

Full Story, 4th August 2017


The sale of ‘grey goods’ can attract criminal penalties under trade mark law, rules UK Supreme Court –

Posted August 4th, 2017 in news, parallel imports, penalties, third parties, trade marks by sally

‘Criminal penalties can be imposed on businesses that engage in the sale of so-called ‘grey goods’, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story, 3rd August 2017


Supreme Court overturns dismissal of appeal because of failure to pay judgment sum into court – Litigation Futures

Posted August 3rd, 2017 in appeals, human rights, news, payment into court, third parties by tracey

‘A Court of Appeal judge was wrong to end an appeal because the appellant company had not complied with a condition to pay the judgment sum into court first and he thought its wealthy owner could have paid instead, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 3rd August 2017


Major boost for claimants with Court of Appeal QOCS ruling – Litigation Futures

‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017


Defendant Secures non-party Costs order against Credit Hire Organisation – Park Square Barristers

‘In this Judgment handed down last week, the Court considered the potential for credit hire companies, who were not parties to the litigation, to be the subject of costs orders. The Appellant car hire company was the subject of such a non-party costs order at first instance and appealed to the High Court. The decision is one which anyone involved in credit hire should be aware of.

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 29th June 2017


Oliver v Sheffield City Council [2017] EWCA Civ. 225 – Tanfield Chambers

‘A local authority was required to give credit to leaseholders for funds received from third-parties when recovering a contribution to the cost of major works.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017


In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, law reports, third parties by sally

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017


“Don’t call them McKenzie friends” – Court of Appeal looks to counter growth of unqualified advisers in crime cases – Legal Futures

‘The term “McKenzie friend” is not appropriate in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, the vice-president of the court has said in a ruling detailing the problems that the increasing number of “unqualified third parties” is causing.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 26th May 2017