Soutzos v Asombang and Others: ChD 21 Jun 2011

The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
Held: Setting out and applying the principles appropriate to such claims, the court found that the defendants had not established that, but for the injunction they would have been able to arrange the financial facility they had described. No payment of damages was awarded.

Newey J
[2011] EWHC 1582 (Ch)
England and Wales
CitedChapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
CitedJobling v Associated Dairies HL 1980
The claimant suffered an accident at work which left him with continuing disabling back pain. Before the trial of his claim he was diagnosed as suffering from a disease, in no way connected with the accident, which would in any event have wholly . .
CitedHeil v Rankin CA 13-Jun-2000
Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without . .
See AlsoSoutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 23-Apr-2010
The claimant had lent substantial sums to the defendant. The defendant had subsequently been made bankrupt, and now said he was released from the debt. . .
CitedLilly Icos Llc and Others v 8Pm Chemists Ltd and Another ChD 31-Jul-2009
The defendants sought assessment of their damages against the claimants under injunctions granted to the claimants and undertakings given.
Held: Arnold J surveyed the applicable legal principles. . .
CitedScholefield v Temper 1859
A surety had been released on the strength of a fraud practised by the debtor.
Held: The creditor’s rights against the surety were restored. Not only is a person who has committed the fraud precluded from deriving any benefit under it, but an . .
CitedDuke of Portland v Topham CA 1864
Commonlii The donee of a power of appointing portions among his younger children appointed a double share to a younger child without previous communication with him. But it appeared from the instructions for the . .
CitedMorley v Loughnan 1893
Wright J in the context of this claim for undue influence, relied on a passage from an earlier case in which Wilmot CJ had said, ‘Let the hand receiving [a gift] be ever so chaste, yet, if it comes through a polluted channel, the obligation of . .
CitedArchbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd (Randall, third party) CA 1961
The court considered the effect of illegality on a contract. Devlin LJ said: ‘The effect of illegality on a contract may be threefold. If at the time of making the contract there is an intent to perform it in an unlawful way, the contract, although . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others PatC 29-Mar-2011
Arnold J considered what kinds of unlawfulness would engage the ex turpi causa principle.
Held: a relevant illegality was one which was sufficiently serious in all the circumstances of the case, including in particular whether the illegal act . .
CitedEddis v Chichester Constable 1969
The court considered an allegation of a concealed fraud.
Held: Goff J referred to the rule ‘that no person however innocent would be allowed to keep what he had received under a title derived through the fraud of another.’ . .
CitedHewison v Meridian Shipping Pte, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd CA 11-Dec-2002
The claimant was awarded damages for injuries suffered in his work as a seaman. The respondents claimed that he should not receive damages, since he had made false declarations as to his health in order to obtain employment, hiding his epilepsy . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and others ChD 9-Oct-2008
The claimant had alleged that the defendant was producing generic drugs which infringed its rights in a new drug. The patentee had given a cross-undertaking in damages, but the patent was later ruled invalid. The court had to assess the damages to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.441063