In a case which has attracted public, press and legal attention, the High Court recently found that the directors of a family-run business should have ensured that the company's interests took precedence over any personal and private loyalties felt towards their family members where those competing interests came into conflict. The court's findings offer a number of helpful reminders of crucial considerations for both businesspeople and legal professionals.
A recent Court of Appeal judgment addressed a number of issues typically encountered in disputes relating to the sale of goods. The decision is a reminder that where oral statements are made in the hope of encouraging a buyer to enter into a sale and purchase contract, if those statements depart from the written terms of the contract, they may render the written terms ineffective.
In the recent case of Chopra v Bank of Singapore Ltd the court considered whether the defendants had been validly served with a claim form and, if not, whether to dispense with service. The court also considered other issues relating to the law applicable to the claims in tort and whether the proceedings should be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Ltd the Commercial Court recently considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a freezing order to assist in the enforcement of an arbitration award against subsidiaries of the first defendant, which were incorporated outside the jurisdiction and had no assets or other presence in England.
In a recent judgment the Court of Appeal found compelling reasons to require the defendant to pay the judgment sum and other amounts into court as a condition of its pursuit of an application for permission to appeal. The case serves as a reminder of the issues that the court will consider when determining whether to impose conditions on a party before considering an application for permission to appeal a first-instance decision.
The Commercial Court recently considered whether it had jurisdiction over a claim against a firm of German lawyers. The case offers an interesting clarification of the rules for jurisdiction over tort claims when the damage pertains to the loss of a contractual right. It may also be a sign that the court is increasingly willing to expand the application of Article 5(3) of the EU Brussels Regulation for the establishment of jurisdiction.
In what is believed to be the first decision on the issue, the High Court has decided that a claimant may serve an individual defendant who is a director of a UK company at any address shown as his or her current address in the Companies House register, despite the director claiming to be resident outside the jurisdiction. The court held that this service method operates as a parallel code to the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in Credit Suisse AG v Arabian Aircraft & Equipment Leasing Co EC. The case yielded a number of noteworthy findings, both at first instance and on appeal. The judgment provides a salutary lesson to litigants that omissions in the pleadings can have serious consequences, and that the court will (or at least should) confine its consideration to the pleaded cases.
The Supreme Court recently issued its judgment in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited, in which Michael Prest was ordered to transfer to his former wife properties held by companies owned and controlled by him as part of a £17.5 million divorce award. The decision may well assuage the concerns of corporates insofar as it adheres to long-held company and trusts law principles.
A recent High Court decision will in all likelihood signal a substantial shift in the approach of the courts towards the dealings of contracting parties. The judge stopped short of suggesting that English law is ready to acknowledge that a requirement of good faith be implied in all commercial contracts, but he did give limited guidance as to the circumstances in which it may properly be implied.
A recent High Court decision provides a lesson to any successful applicant for injunctive relief: it should not leave the court believing that it has closed the door on its duty of full and frank disclosure. On the contrary, that duty merely begins on the application to court for the injunction, and the applicant that does not recognise its continuing hold is liable to lose its relief.