Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Re VGM Holdings Limited: CA 1942

In response to notorious scandals and great dissatisfaction caused by the speculative activities of asset strippers after the First World War, Parliament had decided to criminalise the giving of financial assistance by a company for the purpose of acquiring its own shares. Judges: Lord Greene MR Citations: [1942] Ch 235 Statutes: Companies Act 1929 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Re VGM Holdings Limited: CA 1942

Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne: HL 1940

A mortgage of freehold land contained a covenant to repay the secured loan by half-yearly instalments over a period of 40 years. The mortgagors sought early redemption arguing that the contractual postponement of repayment over a 40 year period was void in equity. The respondents relied upon the mortgage constituting a debenture as defined by … Continue reading Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne: HL 1940

In re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) (No 2): CA 1954

A Russian bank operated in Russia. It had no branch in England, but did have an account, in credit, with a bank in London. On December 15, 1917 the bank was nationalized by a decree of the soviet government. On December 16th 1917, two documents were signed, purporting to be orders from the Russian bank … Continue reading In re Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) (No 2): CA 1954

Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd: HL 1948

A Contract of Service is not a form of property The employee coal miner was prosecuted for absenting himself from work. He was found liable by the justices and appealed. The basis of the appeal was that he had formerly been employed by the Hickleton Mining Company Limited. That had become amalgamated with other companies … Continue reading Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd: HL 1948

Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another: FD 22 Sep 2008

The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court. After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The common theme running through all the cases in which the court has … Continue reading Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another: FD 22 Sep 2008

Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017

The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political persecution. The defendants now appealed from rejection of the defendants’ claim to state immunity and … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017

Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 31 Jul 2003

The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks. Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a reasonable diet, without assistance. It is a notional test, a thought-experiment, to calibrate … Continue reading Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 31 Jul 2003

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6): HL 11 Nov 2004

The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in preparing to present the Bank’s case, and the Bank now appealed an order granting such access, … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6): HL 11 Nov 2004

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co: CA 7 Dec 1892

Unilateral Contract Liability The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘pounds 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two … Continue reading Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co: CA 7 Dec 1892

Rehman v Chamberlain and Another: ChD 6 Sep 2011

The claimant asserted as against the liquidator, a floating and registered charge over the company’s assets. The liquidator said that it had been granted within the twelve months prior to the onset of the insolvency, was caught by section 245(3)(b), and requested rectification of the register. The claimants relied on an opinion from senior counsel. … Continue reading Rehman v Chamberlain and Another: ChD 6 Sep 2011

In re Care Matters Partnership Ltd: ChD 7 Oct 2011

An application was made for the appointment of administrators with retrospective effect. Held: ‘there are two separate questions. The first question is whether an administration order should be made at all. This requires both the satisfaction of the two conditions set out in paragraph 11 (which alone enable the court to make an order) and … Continue reading In re Care Matters Partnership Ltd: ChD 7 Oct 2011