Non-payment of bills of exchange – construction of settlement agreement. It was said that the compromise agreement ws unenforceable as being against public policy in restraining one party.
Held: The restraint ‘does not affect the course of legal proceedings, let alone criminal proceedings. The contrast has to be made between the purported compromise of a public offence and settlement of a private damage suit.’ The agreement was valid.
David Steel J
 EWHC 293 (Comm)
Cited – Howard v Odhams Press CA 1935
The plaintiff claimed damages arising out of disclosure to his union of fraudulent activities in the defendant’s competition department of which he had been a member, such disclosure being contrary to an agreement between the claimant and his . .
Cited – Egerton v Earl of Brownlow HL 1853
The House considered a challenge to the terms of a trust on the basis that it offended public policy. The House therefore considered the nature and importance of public policy.
Held: Public policy ‘has been confounded with what may be called . .
Cited – Lound v Grimwade ChD 1886
The plaintiff tried to set aside a bond, saying that he had executed it under duress in the form of the threat of criminal proceedings.
Held: The bond had not been executed under pressure at law. However the consideration for it included a . .
Cited – Keir v Leeman 1846
Tyndal CJ said: ‘Indeed it is very remarkable what very little authority there is to be found . . for the principle that any compromise of a misdemeanour or indeed of any public offence can be otherwise than illegal and any promise founded on such a . .
Cited – Fulham Football Club Ltd v Cabra Estates plc CA 1994
Fulham, as lessees of Craven Cottage, agreed with CABRA, a developer, who had applied for planning permission to redevelop the ground, shortly before a public inquiry which had been set up to consider the planning application; and also a proposal by . .
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others ComC 18-Nov-2004
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa and Another v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group and others ComC 24-Mar-2006
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation Et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ComC 26-Jan-2007
See Also – Compagnie Noga D’Importation et D’Exportation Sa v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. and others CA 31-Jul-2002
If the court wishes to enable a party to appeal against a particular finding contained in the judgment, it may make a declaration embodying that finding. . .
Cited – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
The court was asked to accept an appeal against not the order made by the tribunal, but the terms of the reasoned judgment.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal had made findings which were unnecessary to its judgment, and which were . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.248950