‘The most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch involving an application to set aside a World-wide Freezing Order (“WFO”) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (“Service Out Order”) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure (“the Full and Frank Duty”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Jessica Joel, trainee solicitor at CMS, considers the case of JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov.;
UK Supreme Court Blog, 13th April 2018
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Whilst it might be tempting as a Defendant company to dissipate assets to avoid Judgment debts, it is ill-advised and is unlikely to provide an easy escape.’
Littleton Chambers, 16th May 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Failing to comply with a freezing order in contempt of court could be considered “unlawful means” as part of an action for damages for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Ever since Johnson v Moreton [1980] AC 37 (61E-G per Lord Hailsham: ‘we should have to adopt the carefree attitude of the Mikado…’), references to Gilbert and Sullivan have been gaining ground in the judgments of our higher Courts. When last year Arden LJ rejected the argument, advanced by the claimant victim of a cartel, that it suffices to establish the intention requirement for the tort of unlawful means conspiracy that the claimant forms part of a class of persons against whom a cartelist’s wrongful acts were targeted, she did so by reference to The Gondoliers.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 2nd November 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
WH Newson Holding Ltd and others v IMI plc and others: [2012] EWHC 3680 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 5
“There was nothing to suggest that section 47A of the Competition Act 1998 was limited to the particular cause of action of a claim for breach of statutory duty. A claim brought under section 47A had to be in respect of the loss or damage suffered as a result of the infringement of competition law. The section would not generally permit claims to be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal for conduct that was distinct from the infringement, even when the infringement was an element that had to be established to complete the cause of action. The determining criterion was the factual nature of the claim, not the cause of action with which it was clothed.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Meretz Investments NV and another v ACP Ltd and others [2007] EWCA Civ 1303
“Where a party did something which he was entitled to do because of his contractual right conferred by A, the fact that it resulted in a breach of B’s contract with A could not constitute unlawful means of which A could complain in an action for damages for unlawful means conspiracy.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2019