Category: Contract

Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir and Others: ChD 17 May 2010

The sixth defendant resisted a claim against it saying that matters between them were governed by a framework agreement which provided for matters to be resolved by arbitration. The claimant resisted, denying the arbitration agreement and saying that the defendant was out of time to make such a claim.
Held: Two arguments were directed to be tried as preliminary issues. There was an arguable case that Bilta had traded with Jetivia with notice that the Framework Agreement contained Jetivia’s standard terms and conditions applied, and that the Framework Agreement (including clause 8.7) became part of the contractual terms binding on Bilta.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2010] Bus LR 1634, [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 29, [2010] EWHC 1086 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 9(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
See Also – Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .
At first instance (1) – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others CA 31-Jul-2013
Defendants appealed against refusal of their request for a summary striking out for lack of jurisdiction, of the claims against them arising from their management of the insolvency of the first defendant. . .
At first Instance (1) – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Arbitration

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.415085

Bowser v Caley and others: ChD 16 Mar 2006

The claimant alleged that the transfer by him of his land to his sister and her husband had been obtained by any of several wrongful means and should be set aside.
Held: The allegations of undue influence failed. The claimant did not establish that the sister had sufficient influence over him, and nor had he established the plea of non est factum or mistake. As to the trust alleged: ‘for a constructive trust to arise it must be established that there was a common intention or understanding that the claimant was to have some beneficial interest in the property. If the claimant has acted to his detriment in reliance on this intention or understanding a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel arises. There is little difference between a constructive trust or a proprietary estoppel though it has been said that there is a greater flexibility in the remedy in the case of an estoppel. ‘ Such a trust arose in the nature of a life interest in the proceeds of sale. However the costs of the actin would be likely to deplete any fund available.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC B3 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Anthony Papouis v Valerie Gibson-West ChD 4-Mar-2004
The deceased had purchased her flat using the discount available as a tenant, and money contributed by the defendant. A deed of trust had been executed, which the claimant now asserted had been obtained by undue influence.
Held: The principles . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Undue Influence

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.241303

Bradmount Investments Ltd v Williams De Broe Plc and others: ChD 10 Nov 2005

The claimants alleged that the defendants had wrongfully induced a breach of contract. There had been a proposal to float a company on the AIM. It was put to the defendant under protection of an agreement so that they might consider working as brokers in the proposed flotation. The agreement contained a particular clause which was not eventually seen by the branch which undertook the work.
Held: There had been a genuine misunderstanding of the terms under which the flotation was to proceed. The claimant had known of its right to require the defendants not to act without express authorisation, but had acquiesced. Acquiescence is an aspect of estoppel by representation.

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2449 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The Shire of Hastings PC 1977
(Victoria) The Board set out the necessary conditions for a clause to be implied into a contract.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘Their Lordships do not think it necessary to review exhaustively the authorities on the implication of a . .
Cited – Philips Electronic Grant Public Sa and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd CA 31-Oct-1994
The implication of an additional term into a contract is dependant on it being the sole solution. As to the implication of terms generally: ‘The question whether a term should be implied, and if so what, almost inevitably arises after a crisis has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.234732

Combe v Combe: CA 1951

The defendant husband had promised his wife to allow her andpound;100 a year free of tax, without his wife furnishing any consideration for the promise. On his failing to pay, she sued on the promise.
Held: Her claim failed. The court declined to treat the principle in High Trees as extending to cover such a case. Promissory estoppel is a defence not itself a cause of action. It is a shield not a sword.
Birkett LJ adopted a phrase of the husband’s counsel that the principle is ‘one to be used as a shield and not as a sword’.
Denning LJ said that the principle ‘does not create new causes of action. It only prevents a party from insisting upon his strict legal rights, when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties’
Having considered case law on the need for consideration, he said: ‘In none of these cases was the defendant sued on the promise, assurance, or assertion as a cause of action in itself. He was sued for some other cause, for example, a pension or a breach of contract, or possession, and the promise, assurance, or assertion only played a supplementary role, though, no doubt, an important one. That is, I think, its true function. It may be part of a cause of action, but not a cause of action in itself. The principle, as I understand it, is that where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word.
Seeing that the principle never stands alone as giving a cause of action in itself, it can never do away with the necessity of consideration when that is an essential part of the cause of action. The doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side-wind. Its ill effects have been largely mitigated of late, but it still remains a cardinal necessity of the formation of a contract, although not of its modification or discharge. I fear that it was my failure to make this clear in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd which misled Byrne J in the present case. He held that the wife could sue on the husband’s promise as a separate and independent cause of action by itself, although, as he held, there was no consideration for it. That is not correct. The wife can only enforce the promise if there was consideration for it. That is, therefore, the real question in the case: Was there sufficient consideration to support the promise?

Judges:

Denning LJ, Birkett and Asquith LJJ

Citations:

[1951] 2 KB 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .

Cited by:

Cited – WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.250976

Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd: CA 14 Dec 2007

Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract

The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a joint debt, and to become severally liable for that part, the parties have necessarily entered into a binding agreement for good consideration that the debtor’s liability for the rest of the joint debt is discharged. He had been one of three partners owing a substantial debt to the creditors. He said he had been told he would not be pursued if he paid at a third of the rate for all three, and that he had done so.
Held: The fact that a creditor agrees with a joint debtor to accept payment from him alone of his proportionate share does not result in a binding agreement. Accordingly, this factual paradigm does not constitute yet another situation when the rule in Pinnel’s case is avoided.
As to the argument that an estoppel had been created, the effect of promissory estoppel is usually suspensory only, but, if the effect of resiling is sufficiently inequitable, a debtor may be able to show that the right to recover the debt is not merely postponed but extinguished. The defendant had an arguable case for an estoppel, and the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Arden LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2007] NPC 136, [2008] 1 WLR 643, [2007] BPIR 1452

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pinnel’s Case, Penny v Core CCP 1602
Payment of Lesser Sum Not Satisfaction
(Court of Common Pleas) The payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. The gift of a horse, hawk, robe, etc., in satisfaction, is good. Payment of part before the day and acceptance may . .
Cited – Foakes v Beer HL 16-May-1884
Mrs Beer had obtained judgment against Dr Foakes for pounds 2,090 19s. He asked for time to pay and they agreed with him, acknowledging the debt, and paying part immediately and undertaking to pay the balance over a period of time. In consideration . .
Cited – In Re Selectmove Ltd CA 21-Dec-1993
Promisse to Pay Tax due is not Consideration
The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue.
Held: The court declined to regard a promise to the Revenue by a company to pay its existing . .
Cited – Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd CA 23-Nov-1989
The defendant subcontracted some of its work under a building contract to the plaintiff at a price which left him in financial difficulty and there was a risk that the work would not be completed by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to make . .
Cited – Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc The ‘Saudi Eagle’ CA 1986
The defendants, believing that they had no assets, deliberately allowed an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed to be entered against them by default, and only after damages had been assessed and final judgment entered, realising that . .
Cited – Bryce Ashworth v Newnote Ltd CA 27-Jul-2007
The appellant challenged a refusal to set aside a statutory demand, in respect of his director’s loan account with the respondent company, saying the court should have accepted other accounts to set off against that debt.
Held: A statutory . .
Cited – Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd ChD 2002
The court was asked whether the district judge had applied the right test on an application to set aside a statutory demand because the conclusions of the district judge referred to a real prospect of success, the test used in CPR 24.2, rather than . .
Cited – Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co HL 1877
A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was . .
Cited – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .
Cited – Tool Metal Manufactuing Company Ltd v Tungsten Electric Company Ltd HL 16-Jun-1955
The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. . .
Cited – D and C Builders Ltd v Rees CA 1966
The plaintiff builders had been chasing payment of their undisputed invoice. Knowing that the builders were in financial difficulties, the defendant offered rather less, saying that if it was not accepted, she would pay nothing. She made the payment . .
Cited – Couldery v Bartrum 1881
coulder_bartrum1881
A secured creditor was not entitled to amend after a composition had been taken and completed. Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘According to English common law a creditor might accept anything in satisfaction of his debt except a less amount of money. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Contract, Estoppel

Leading Case

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.262160

Birmingham and District Land Co v London and North Western Railway: CA 1886

The court considered the creation of an estoppel: Cotton LJ: ‘. . what passed did not make a new agreement, but . . what took place . . raised an equity against him.’
Bowen LJ said: ‘The truth is that the proposition is wider than cases of forfeiture. It seems to me to amount to this, that if persons who have contractual rights against others induce by their conduct those against whom they have such rights to believe that such rights will either not be enforced or will be kept in suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those persons will not be allowed by a Court of Equity to enforce the rights until such time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as they were before. That is the principle to be applied. I will not say it is not a principle that was recognised by Courts of Law as well as of Equity. It is not necessary to consider how far it was always a principle of common law.’
Fry LJ considered that there was an essential difference between a claim for damages for breach of a contract and a claim for an indemnity under an express provision in a contract.

Judges:

Cotton LJ, Fry LJ, Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1886) 40 ChD 268

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.251177

D and C Builders Ltd v Rees: CA 1966

The plaintiff builders had been chasing payment of their undisputed invoice. Knowing that the builders were in financial difficulties, the defendant offered rather less, saying that if it was not accepted, she would pay nothing. She made the payment in full and final satisfaction of the debt.
Held: The claim for the balance succeeded. The pressure applied had been improper, and there was no ground in equity to disentitle the plantiff recovering the rest.
When a debtor offers to pay only that which he admits he is already due to pay, that is not something which can amount to good consideration for the creditor abandoning the rest, save possibly in certain special circumstances. The doctrine of promissory estoppel only applies when it is inequitable for the creditor (or other representor) to insist on his full rights.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘This principle [the principle of promissory estoppel] has been applied to cases where a creditor agrees to accept a lesser sum in discharge of a greater. So much so that we can now say that, when a creditor and a debtor enter upon a course of negotiation, which leads the debtor to suppose that, on payment of the lesser sum, the creditor will not enforce payment of the balance, and on the faith thereof the debtor pays the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it as satisfaction: then the creditor will not be allowed to enforce payment of the balance when it would be inequitable to do so. This was well illustrated during the last war. Tenants went away to escape the bombs and left their houses unoccupied. The landlords accepted a reduced rent for the time they were empty. It was held that the landlords could not afterwards turn round and sue for the balance, see Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. This caused at the time some eyebrows to be raised in high places. But they have been lowered since. The solution was so obviously just that no one could well gainsay it.
In applying this principle, however, we must note the qualification: The creditor is only barred from his legal rights when it would be inequitable for him to insist upon them. Where there has been a true accord, under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept a lesser sum in satisfaction, and the debtor acts upon that accord by paying the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it, then it is inequitable for the creditor afterwards to insist on the
Danckwerts LJ said that the case of Foakes v Beer: ‘settled definitely the rule of law that payment of a lesser sum than the amount of a debt due cannot be a satisfaction of the debt, unless there is some benefit to the creditor added so that there is an accord and satisfaction.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Dankwerts LJ

Citations:

[1966] 2 QB 617, [1965] EWCA Civ 3, [1965] 3 All ER 837, [1966] 2 WLR 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD 18-Jul-1946
Promissory Estoppel Created
The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of pounds 2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .
Cited – Hirachand Punamchand v Temple CA 1911
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Cited – Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA 14-Dec-2007
Agreement for payment by joint debtor not contract
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .
Cited – In Re Selectmove Ltd CA 21-Dec-1993
Promisse to Pay Tax due is not Consideration
The company appealed against an order for its winding up, saying that the debt was disputed, an accomodation having been reached with the Revenue.
Held: The court declined to regard a promise to the Revenue by a company to pay its existing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243135

Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another: QBD 22 May 2009

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1152 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Joseph and Others v Spiller and Another CA 22-Oct-2009
The claimants, members of a rock band, alleged defamation by the defendants on their web-site. The defendants provided booking services. They said that the claimants were unreliable in failing to meet their contractual obligations. Their terms . .
At First Instance – Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Contract

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.346746

The Stettin: 1889

A bill of lading was issued by the owners of a German flag vessel and covered carriage from London to Stettin. It was made out to a named consignee ‘or to his or their assigns’ who was the agent for Julius Manasse in Breslau, and was instructed by the shipper on arrival in Stettin to arrange for the goods to be sent on by lighter to Manasse. No bill of lading was produced by him for delivery, however, and the shipper was not paid. The shipper sued the carrier for misdelivery of the goods. The defendant shipowner’s said that where there was a named consignee ‘or order’ but the consignee did not endorse the bill (as in that case), the effect was the same as a straight bill of lading. The shipowner could deliver to the consignee without production of a bill of lading unless told by the shipper not to do so, taking the risk, presumably as against an endorsee, of whether there had been an endorsement or not.
Held: German law does not essentially differ from English law, according to which a shipowner may not deliver goods to the consignee without production of the bill of lading. The shipowner must take the consequences.

Citations:

(1889) 14 PD 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Cited – J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.181894

Conquer v Boot: CA 1928

The householder recovered damages in the county court in an action against a builder for breach of a building contract to complete the works in a good and workmanlike manner. He then brought a second action upon the same contract. In the second action, he again alleged a failure to complete the works in a good and workmanlike manner but in addition pleaded that there was a failure to carry out the building works with proper materials. At first instance, the judge in the second action held that householder could not pursue a claim for defects that were obvious at the time of the first action, but that res judicata was no bar to claims in respect of further defects that were not then apparent. A contract to build a house was an entire contract. The proprietor had but one cause of action for breach of a contract to build in a proper and workmanlike manner with proper materials.
Held: The builde’s appeal succeeded
Sankey LJ said: ‘The cause of action here is ; (1) the contract to complete in a good and workmanlike manner a bungalow and (2) the breach of it – I do not think that every breach of it – every particular brick or particular room that is faulty – gives rise to a separate cause of action.’
As to Brunsden, Sankey LJ said: ‘In the present case, adopting the same analogy, it seems to be quite impossible to say that in the first month of the year the plaintiff could have brought his action for failure to complete the dining room in a proper and workmanlike manner and next month for failure to complete the drawing room and so forth.’

Judges:

Sankey LJ

Citations:

[1928] 2 KB 336, [1928] All ER 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Brunsden v Humphrey CA 1884
The defendant had negligently caused damage to a cab driver and his vehicle in the same accident. The cab driver obtained damages for the damage to his vehicle.
Held: He was not disentitled from bringing fresh proceedings for damages for . .

Cited by:

Limited – Purser and Co (Hillingdon) Limited v Jackson and another ChD 1971
Forbes J said: ‘Mr Macgregor maintains that arbitrations are concerned with disputes and not with causes of action and he says that within a cause of action there may be many disputes and the arbitrator is only concerned with disputes. He contends . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.468968

SSL International Plc and Another v TTK Lig Ltd and Others: CA 19 Oct 2011

The parties had contracted for the manufacture and supply of condoms. They now disputed the consequences of the breakdown of their relationship.

Judges:

Mummery, Arden, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1170, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 429, [2012] 1 WLR 1842, [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107, [2012] Bus LR 858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Contract

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.446003

DB and Others v Worcestershire County Council (Costs): Admn 27 Oct 2006

Judges:

Owen J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2613 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – DB and Others v Worcestershire County Council Admn 27-Oct-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Housing, Contract, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.344030

Ministry of Defence v Country and Metropolitan Homes (Rissington) Ltd and Another: ChD 22 Oct 2002

A transfer of land included overage provisions providing for payment of compensation if the land was developed within a certain period. They claimed that additional clauses needed to be implied.
Held: Whether a clause was to be implied was a question of law, not fact. Here the contract was workable without the implied terms, and could be given business efficacy without them. The clause would not be implied.

Judges:

Rimer J

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2113 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Land

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.658065

Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club): QBD 8 Oct 2014

The claimant, a professional gambler, sued the defendant casino for his winnings. The club replied that the claimant’s methods amounted to a form of cheating, and that no liability arose to pay the winnings.
Held: The claim failed. ‘The fact that the claimant is genuinely convinced that he is not a cheat and even that that opinion commands considerable support from others, – see for example, Dr. Jacobson, – is not determinative of the question.’ and ‘It is immaterial that the casino could have protected itself against it by simple measures. The casino can protect itself by simple measures against cheating or legitimate advantage play. The fact that it can do so does not determine which it is.’ The claimant was truthful when he said that he did not consider what he did to be cheating; therefore dishonesty and in particular the second leg of the test established by R v Ghosh had not been demonstrated. However, his play on this occasion amounted in law to cheating. This meant he had breached the terms on which Crockfords agreed to allow him to play:

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3394 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 504

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1845 17, Gaming Act 2005 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited – Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash CA 19-Nov-2010
It is ultimately for the court to decide, as it must in the case of the standard of honesty to be expected in dealing of businessmen and trustees, whether or not conduct amounts to cheating. The standard is objective.
Leveson LJ identified the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) CA 4-Nov-2016
The claimant sought recovery of his substantial winnings from the defendant gaming club. The club had resisted saying that the methods used by the claimant at cards, called, ‘edge sorting’ was a form of cheating, a criminal offence within the . .
At First Instance – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.538709

Cudgen Rutile (No.2) Pty Ltd and Another v Gordon William Wesley Chalk (And Consolidated Appeals): PC 13 Nov 1974

(Queensland) As a matter of general principle, the courts are readier in modern times to find a contract ‘even though apparent certainty may be lacking as regards some term such as the price, provided that some means or standard by which that term can be fixed can be found

Citations:

[1974] UKPC 30, [1975] AC 520

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Contract

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444368

Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Limited v Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty. Limited: PC 10 Jul 1980

(Australia) Lord Wilbeforce said: ‘A breach of a repudiatory character . . entitles the innocent party, unless he waives the breach, to claim to be released from further performance of his obligations under the contract. So far their Lordships of course agree. One of these obligations, counsel proceeded to argue, was to bring any action on the breach within a period of one year, and the innocent party was released from his obligations. An alternative way of putting it was that the bringing of suit within a year was a condition with which the innocent party was obliged to comply; the repudiatory breach discharged this condition.
Their Lordships’ opinion on these arguments is clear. However adroitly presented, they are unsound, and indeed unreal.
Moreover it is quite unreal to equate this [limitation clause] with those provisions in the contract which relate to performance. It is a clause which comes into operation when contractual performance has become impossible, or has been given up; then, it regulates the manner in which liability for breach of contract is to be established. In this respect their Lordships found it relevantly indistinguishable from an arbitration clause, or a forum clause, which, on clear authority, survive a repudiatory breach. . . Counsel for the consignee appealed for support to some observations by Lord Diplock in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556 at 566-567, [1980] 2 WLR 283, 294-295, where reference is made to putting an end ‘to all primary obligations . . remaining unperformed’. But these words were never intended to cover such ‘obligations’ . . as arise when primary obligations have been put an end to. There then arise, on his Lordship’s analysis, secondary obligations which include an obligation to pay monetary compensation. Whether these have been modified by agreement is a matter of construction of the contract. The analysis, indeed, so far from supporting the consignee’s argument, is directly opposed to it. Their Lordships are of the opinion that, on construction and analysis, [the limitation provision] plainly operates to exclude.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 138, [1980] UKPC 23, [1980] 3 All ER 257, [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 317

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Contract, Limitation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444009

Johnson and Another v Davis and Another: CA 18 Mar 1998

The court was asked: ‘whether or not the appellants were released from their obligation under a covenant to indemnify the respondents against claims arising under a lease by reason of the terms of an individual voluntary arrangement made under part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a co-obligee who was liable, jointly with the appellants, under the same covenant.’
Held: There is no rule of law that one joint debtor (not joint and several) may not be released from debt by the individual voluntary arrangement of another.
Chadwick LJ observed that: ‘The statutory hypothesis is that the person who had notice of and was entitled to vote at the meeting is party to an arrangement to which he has given his consent . . Unlike the earlier legislation, section 260(2) of the Act of 1986 does not purport, directly, to impose the arrangement on a dissenting creditor whether or not he has agreed to its terms; rather, he is bound by the arrangements as the result of a statutory hypothesis. The statutory hypothesis requires him to be treated as if he had consented to the arrangement.’ Accordingly, questions as to the effect of the arrangement on sureties . . were to be answered by treating the arrangement as consensual; that is to say, by construing its terms as if they were the terms of a consensual agreement between the debtor and all those creditors who, under the statutory hypothesis, must be treated as being consenting parties.’

Judges:

Chadwick, Kennedy, Ward LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1999] Ch 117, [1998] EWCA Civ 483, [1998] 2 All ER 649

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 260(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Deanplan Limited v Mahmoud 1992
The court considered whether a release of one of joint contractors released the other contractors. He said: ‘An original lessee or intermediate assignee of the lease who had given a direct covenant to pay rent and observe the covenant is released . .
Cited – RA Securities v Mercantile Credit 1995
The effect of an individual voluntary arrangement was not such as to release solvent co-debtors under the rule of law that the release of one of two or more joint debtors has the effect of releasing the other or others. . .
Applied – Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chelsea Building Society v Nash CA 19-Oct-2010
The defendant customer of the Society appealed against an order as to the sum due under a joint mortgage. She said that the ‘full and final settlement’ of the debt with Ms Nash’s former husband and joint mortgagor had the effect of releasing Ms Nash . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Damages, Contract

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443849

Camertown Timber Merchants Ltd and Another v Sidhu and Another: CA 8 Sep 2011

The parties disputed a course of trading between them without formal contracts being used. The challenge now was as to the adequacy of the judge’s findings.
Held: The appeal failed. The judgment was ‘short, even perfunctory and Delphic.’ However the substance of it was discernable and beyond challenge. It was also critical of the amount spent by the parties on costs, and given that each party had succeeded on various of the many issues, he declined to award costs.

Judges:

Ward, Mooer-Bick, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1041

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443754

Wong Lai Ying and Others v Chinachem Investment Co Ltd: PC 27 Nov 1979

(Hong Kong)

Citations:

[1979] UKPC 41

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel and Co HL 12-Dec-1918
The defendant ship-owners contracted to lease the ship on charter to the plaintiffs. Before the term, the ship was requisitioned for the war effort. The plaintiffs did not exercise the contractual right given to them to cancel the charterparty. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443400

New Hampshire Insurance Company and Others v MGN Ltd and Others: ComC 6 Sep 1996

Judges:

Staughton, McGowan, Auld LJJ

Citations:

[1996] EWHC 398 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rust v Abbey Life Assurance Co ltd CA 1979
Delay in objection indicated assent to contract
The court was asked whether a binding contract had been concluded between an applicant for an investment in property bonds and the insurance company offering such bonds when, in response to an application form submitted by the applicant, accompanied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contract

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442452

Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd and Another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Others: CA 6 Nov 2009

The court considered the extent of the so-called anti-deprivation rule which would avoid a contract designed to deprive creditors of an asset on the insolvency of a party to the contract. The claimant appealed a finding that the rule did not apply to synthetic collateralised debt obligations.
Held: A transaction completed before the insolvency act need not be caught. The particular contractual arrangements here did not fall within the anti-deprivation rule, and the provisions were valid. The Collateral was acquired with money provided by the Noteholders and that the change in priorities was included to ensure that the Noteholders were repaid out of those assets.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Patten

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1160, Times 16-Nov-2009, [2010] BCC 59, [2010] 3 WLR 87, [2010] 1 BCLC 747, [2010] Bus LR 632, [2010] BPIR 174, [2010] Ch 347

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ex parte Jay, in re Harrison CA 26-Feb-1880
A builder agreed with the owner of the land on which he was to build houses that upon his bankruptcy all the building materials on the land should become absolutely forfeited to the owner. The builder than charged the materials, but this was not . .
Appeal from – Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another ChD 28-Jul-2009
The parties had entered into complicated financial arrangements effectively providing credit insurance. On the insolvency of Lehman brothers, a claim was made.
Held: The contractual provisions were effective as a matter of English law and, in . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
Complex financial instruments insured the indebtedness of Lehman Brothers. On that company’s insolvency a claim was made. It was said that provisions in the documents offended the rule against the anti-deprivation rule. The courts below had upheld . .
See Also – Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another ChD 17-Nov-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Banking, Insolvency

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.377779

Ex parte Jay, in re Harrison: CA 26 Feb 1880

A builder agreed with the owner of the land on which he was to build houses that upon his bankruptcy all the building materials on the land should become absolutely forfeited to the owner. The builder than charged the materials, but this was not registered as a bill of sale. The builder was then made bankrupt, and his trustee and the landowner disputed the right to the materials.
Held: The agreement was void, as it violated or was ‘in fraud of’ the bankruptcy laws. Upon bankruptcy, the bankrupt’s property was really no longer his own, and becomes the property of his trustee in bankruptcy.
Cotton LJ said: ‘though the contract is good as between the parties to it, it is on principle void in the event of the builder’s bankruptcy’ and ‘there cannot be a valid contract that a man’s property shall remain his until his bankruptcy, and on the happening of that event shall go over to someone else, and be taken away from his creditors.’
James LJ said: ‘a simple stipulation that, upon a man’s becoming bankrupt, that which was his property up to the date of the bankruptcy should go over to some one else and be taken away from his creditors, is void as being a violation of the policy of the bankrupt law.’

Judges:

Cotton, James LJJ

Citations:

(1880) 14 ChD 19, [1880] UKLawRpCh 60

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd and Another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Others CA 6-Nov-2009
The court considered the extent of the so-called anti-deprivation rule which would avoid a contract designed to deprive creditors of an asset on the insolvency of a party to the contract. The claimant appealed a finding that the rule did not apply . .
Cited – Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
Complex financial instruments insured the indebtedness of Lehman Brothers. On that company’s insolvency a claim was made. It was said that provisions in the documents offended the rule against the anti-deprivation rule. The courts below had upheld . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Contract

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.374117

John Macdonald v Federation International De Football Association and others: OHCS 2 Dec 1998

An organiser of a football match was not responsible for the costs of a disappointed spectator after the opposing team failed to appear. A foreign company once properly joined as co-defendant remained a party after a native party was released.

Judges:

R.G. McEwan

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-1999, [1998] ScotCS 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.169743

Time Group Limited v Computer 2000 Distribution Limited and IBM United Kingdom Limited: TCC 4 Feb 2002

Computers had been supplied by the second defendant to the claimant and first defendant at different times for exclusive distribution in the UK. Defects were alleged. The case concerned applications made for dismissal of a case as an abuse of process, and for discovery. A previous action had been settled against the second defendant. Allegations were made of computers being sold when they were known to be defective. Time sought to encourage the first defendant to join in IBM as Part 20 defendant, and agreed to limit its claim to assist.
Held: Pursuing one defendant and limiting the claim to what that defendant might recover from a third party, was not necessarily wrong. Abuse was possible when an issue was pursued which could have been dealt with in earlier proceedings. Time had not joined the first defendant in the first action. That rule is now capable of applying, even where the parties were different. When abuse is revealed, the court has a duty, not a discretion, to dismiss the action.
Held: Here the claimant was acting in a devious way, and the claim was an abuse and was to be struck out.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Bowsher QC

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 126 (Technology)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Seddon and Hancock; Walsh and Rhodes (Trading As Hancocks (a Firm) CA 11-Mar-1999
There was an unsatisfied judgment on a claim by a defendant in an earlier action against a third party. In a subsequent action against the defendant the latter issued third party proceedings against the original and different third parties.
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Computer 2000 Distribution Ltd and others v ICM Computer Solutions Plc CA 17-Nov-2004
The claimant delivered computer equipment against a fraudulent invoice issued in the name of the defendant.
Held: The loss here had to fall on an innocent party. Having delivered the equipment to the site requested, the claimant had done all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167600

Aker Oil and Gas Technology UK Plc v Sovereign Corporate Limited: TCC 15 Jan 2002

The claimants sought payment of a bonus for having completed the construction of a vessel on time. They claimed that certificates estopped the defendants from admitting the bonus to be due. The defendants said the certificates had been issued in reliance upon false representations made by the claimants.
Held: The defendant was estopped from denying the validity of the certificates.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richard Havery Q.C.

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 104 (Technology)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Alfred C Toepfer v Peter Cremer CA 1975
The court was asked as to the effect of a telex sent by the buyers to the sellers, notifying them that if a notice of appropriation was not received by the following day, then the buyers would treat the sellers as being in default, under clause 26 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Estoppel

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167529

Oakley v Rigby: 4 May 1836

The declaration alleged that Defendant was indebted to Plaintiff for work done, and for commission due and payable from Defendant to Plaintiff in respect thereof, for money paid by Plaintiff to the use of Defendant ; for interest for the forbearance by Plaintiff, at Defendant’s request, of monies due and owing to Plaintiff; and for money found to be due on an account stated.

Citations:

[1836] EngR 662, (1836) 2 Bing NC 732, (1836) 132 ER 282

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.314994

Surtees v Lister: 29 May 1861

A declaration stated that B and the defendant, joint owners of a horse and mare, agreed that the defendant should sell them, and pay one moiety of the proceeds to the plaintiff as the agent of B , who was abroad that the defendant sold the horse to C. for 600l, and the mare for 300l. and did not receive the price of the horse, but took from the purchaser of the mare a promissory note for 300l. which the defendant indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff as the agent of B, and the amount of which was received by the plaintiff as such agent that the defendant afterwards requested the plaintiff, upon his own responsibility, to pay the defendant one moiety of the 300l in the plaintiff’s hands as such agent, and the plaintiff paid the defendant 50l. That the defendant again requested the plaintiff, on his own responsibility, to pay the defendant 100l, the residue of the moiety of the 300l, which the plaintiff was willing to do provided the defendant, in consideration of the said sum of 50l. so paid and the further sum of 100l when paid, would undertake either to deliver to the plaintiff a bill of exchange for 233l 3s (being B.’s moiety of the proceeds of the sale of the horse, less the forfeits in respect of the same), drawn by the defendant upon and accepted by C at two months date, or pay the plaintiff 233l 3s in cash within two weeks , and thereupon the defendarit wrote and delivered to the plaintiff the following undertaking. ‘In consideration of your having paid me the sum of 150l. On account of my share of the mare, I hereby undertake to deliver to you a bill for 233l 3s. drawn by me upon and to be accepted by C at two months, or the above sum in cash within two weeks from this date.’ On demurrer : Held, that the declaration disclosed a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise.

Citations:

[1861] EngR 638, (1861) 7 H and N 1, (1861) 158 ER 367

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.284399

Themis Avraamides and Another v Colwill and Another: CA 14 Nov 2006

The claimants sought damages from the defendants who had purchased the contractor’s business for failures in the refurbishment of their flat. Their only direct contract was with the main contractors, but the defendants had adopted the liabilities of the original contractors.
Held: The claimants were unable to rely on the 1999 Act. To be able to use the contract to which they were not a party, they had to be named in that contract as taking a benefit, or a least comprised in a class of people said to benefit. No such class was identified by the contract. The word ‘express’ in the Act did not allow any implication to be made.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Levesaon LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1533, Times 12-Dec-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.246009

Daraydan Holdings Limited, Cairn Estates Limited and Others v Solland International Limited and Others: ChD 26 Mar 2004

The court was asked whether Lister and Co v Stubbs 45 ChD 1, a decision of the Court of Appeal, was binding on him or whether he could apply the Privy Council’s decision in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid
Held: On the facts of the case the judge was able to distinguish Lister and Co v Stubbs but said, if he had been unable to do so, he would have applied Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid.
Lawrence Collins J said: ‘The House of Lords forcefully reaffirmed the rules of stare decisis in Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264, but nothing was said about the decisions both in the Court of Appeal (eg Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 and Worcester Works Finance Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd [1972] 1 QB 210) and at first instance which suggest that both a judge of first instance and the Court of Appeal are free to follow decisions of the Privy Council on common law principles which depart, after full argument, from earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal . . The system of precedent would be shown in a most unfavourable light if a litigant in such a case were forced by the doctrine of binding precedent to go to the House of Lords (perhaps through a leap-frog appeal under the Administration of Justice Act 1969, section 12) in order to have the decision of the Privy Council affirmed. That would be particularly so where the decision of the Privy Council is recent, where it was a decision on the English common law, where the Board consisted mainly of serving Law Lords, and where the decision had been made after full argument on the correctness of the earlier decision.’

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 622 (Ch), [2005] Ch 119, [2004] 3 WLR 1106, [2004] WTLR 815, [2005] 4 All ER 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Solland International Ltd v Daraydan Holdings Ltd TCC 15-Feb-2002
. .
Preferred – The Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid and Reid And Marc Molloy Co PC 1-Nov-1993
(New Zealand) The Board considered the power to recover property owned by a public official found to have taken bribes.
Held: The bribes received by the policeman were held on trust for his principal, and so they could be traced into . .

Cited by:

Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Cited – Willers v Gubay ChD 15-May-2015
The court was asked whether the tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings is known to English law.
Held: The Crawfod Adjusters case should not be followed: ‘If I am not bound by Gregory, then I see no reason for departing from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Constitutional

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.195041

Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Co Ltd v Macleod and Co: HL 19 Mar 1917

Contract – War – Mines and Minerals – Suspensory Condition – Applicability of the Condition.
The respondents were entitled, under a contract with the appellants for a supply of ore, to determine the contract in the event of war affecting the mine. Owing to loss of business with Germany caused by the war the mine was closed. The respondents claimed to determine the contract, although it was still possible for them to supply the appellants with ore from previous accumulations. The appellants claimed that the effect of the war upon the mine was not sufficiently direct to make the condition operative. Held that the mine was affected by the war, although its closing was not directly caused by the operations of war.

Citations:

[1917] UKHL 636, 54 SLR 636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.630998

General Motors UK Ltd v The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd: ChD 30 Nov 2016

The claimants had had a long standing licence to discharge water in the defendant’s canal. Having failed to pay the license fee, the licence was revoked. The claimants sought relief from forfeiture.
Held: Granted

Judges:

His Honour Judge Behrens sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2960 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – General Motors UK Ltd v The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd ChD 13-Jan-2017
. .
Appeal from – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd CA 17-May-2018
. .
At First Instance – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd SC 23-Oct-2019
Limits on relief from forfeiture of land
In the context of land, equitable relief is only available for forfeiture of property rights, as opposed to a right to possession under a contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.571984

The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Hayes Freehold Ltd and Others: ChD 20 Jul 2017

Judges:

Henry Carr J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1820 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v Exotix Partners Llp ChD 9-Sep-2019
The parties had contracted to trade global depository notes issued by the Peruvian government. Each made mistakes as to their true value, thinking them scraps worth a few thousand dollars, whereas their true value was over $8m. On the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.591240

Unaoil Ltd v Amona Ranhill Consortium Sdn Bhd: ComC 13 Jun 2012

Application by the first and second defendants to set aside service of these proceedings on them. The only issue is whether there is a sufficiently arguable case that one or both of these defendants is liable to make the payments due under an a Agency Agreement concluded on its face between the claimant and the third defendant.

Judges:

Stephen Males QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1595 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.460511

Helmsley Acceptances Ltd v Ali and Another: ChD 14 Jun 2012

The court considered: ‘Whether, in the events that have happened, the agreement between the parties . . . has compromised the present claim and, consequently, whether the Claimant is obliged to withdraw its claim or whether the Claimant is still entitled to maintain its claim herein.’

Judges:

Wyand QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1591 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.460587

Vickers v Jackson: CA 24 May 2011

The claimant sought the discharge of his property from a charge in favour of the respondent. The respondent now appealed against the setting aside of the charge as a sham, saying that it had been entered into by the claimant as a ruse to defeat his creditors, and that he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own unlawful acts.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘Mr Jackson is not entitled to any remedy under the charge because no money is due under it. It is not and never can be security for any debt. Once that is established, Mr Vickers is entitled as owner of the property to have the entries relating to the charge removed from the register. Otherwise, as the judge said, his present creditors would be at least misled and possibly adversely affected by the presence on the register of entries relating to a charge which in reality secures nothing.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Carnwath, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 725, [2011] 34 EG 104

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441234

Bleasdale and Another v Forster: ChD 2 Mar 2011

The claimants sought damages alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and or breach of contract in inducing them to invest in the defendant’s company.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 416 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bleasdale and Another v Forster (596) ChD 16-Mar-2011
Order on application for leave to amend particulars of claim after strike out of claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.430373