Results: 82

• AMT Futures Ltd v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Guntner Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

  11 Apr 2014 [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm); [2015] QB 699; [2015] 2 WLR 187; [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 374; [2014] WLR (D) 182; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 349, QBD (Popplewell J)

  26 Feb 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] QB 699; [2015] 3 WLR 282; [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 486; [2015] WLR (D) 95, CA

  28 Jul 2015 (appn all) [2015] 1 WLR 4935, SC(E)

  02 Feb 2016 (appn all) [2016] 1 WLR 1159, SC(E)

  01 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 13; [2018] AC 439; [2017] 2 WLR 853; [2017] 4 All ER 382; [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041; [2017] WLR (D) 154; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 39.
  COSTS — Discretion of court — Order against successful party

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Special jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COSTS — Discretion of court — Order against successful party — Court of Appeal ordering part of costs of proceedings to be paid by successful party — Whether successful party to recover full costs — CPR r 44.2

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under European Union Regulation — Special jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Claimant entering into agreements with clients containing exclusive English jurisdiction clauses — German defendant allegedly inducing clients to breach clauses by bringing claims against claimant in Germany — Claimant bringing claim against defendant in England alleging tort of wrongfully inducing breach of contract — Nature of harm resulting from alleged tortious conduct — Whether “harmful event occurred” in England — Whether English court having jurisdiction — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, art 5(3)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  26 Mar 2013 [2013] EWHC 665 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 125, Ch D (Henderson J)

  12 Feb 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 82; [2015] STC 1280; [2015] WLR (D) 73, CA

  11 Apr 2017 [2017] UKSC 29; [2018] AC 275; [2017] 2 WLR 1200; [2017] 3 All ER 113; [2017] STC 985; [2017] WLR (D) 284; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 55.
  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Money paid under mistake of law

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Refund

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Assessment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Money paid under mistake of law — Claimants paying VAT to suppliers of services — VAT subsequently found not to have been payable — Suppliers reclaiming VAT from revenue under statutory procedure and remitting moneys to claimants — Moneys refunded by revenue limited to amount paid by suppliers to revenue, net of input tax — Claimants bringing restitutionary claims against revenue for balance — Extent of revenue’s enrichment — Whether revenue enriched at claimants’ expense — Whether statutory scheme protecting revenue from common law claims — Whether scheme compatible with European Union law — Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c 23), s 80 (as amended by Finance Act 1997 (c 16), s 46 and Finance (No 2) Act 2005 (c 22), s 3)

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Refund — Tax overpaid by taxpayer — Claim by end consumer of VAT charged on services subsequently held to be exempt — Whether taxpayer having mistake-based restitutionary claims for unrecovered VAT — Whether revenue enriched — Whether enrichment at taxpayer’s expense — Whether enrichment unjust — Whether cause of action excluded by statute — Whether taxpayer having directly effective EU law right to reimbursement — Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 80(7)

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Assessment — Claimant investment trusts paying VAT on management services— — VAT mistakenly thought to be due outside prescribed period— — Whether recoverable from defendant— — Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 80

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• Willers v Joyce

  15 May 2015 [2015] EWHC 1315 (Ch); [2015] CN 817, Ch D (Amanda Tipples QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division)

  20 Jul 2016 [2016] UKSC 43; [2018] AC 779; [2016] 3 WLR 477; [2017] 2 All ER 327; [2016] WLR (D) 401; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 27.
  TORT — Cause of action — Malicious prosecution
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TORT — Cause of action — Malicious prosecution — Claimant seeking damages for tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings — Defendant seeking to strike out claim — Whether tort known to English law in respect of civil proceedings — Whether claim to be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action

  TORT — Cause of action — Malicious prosecution — Action brought against company director in respect of breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties — Claim withdrawn before trial — Company director claiming damages for tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings — Whether tort known to English law

  TORT — Cause of action — Malicious prosecution — Action brought against company director in respect of breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties — Claim withdrawn before trial — Company director claiming damages for tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings — Whether tort known to English law

  5 Case(s) considered
• R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans

  22 Apr 2016 [2016] EWHC 916 (Admin); [2016] 1 WLR 3073; [2016] 2 Cr App R 17; [2016] WLR (D) 209, DC

  28 Nov 2016 (appn all) [2017] 1 WLR 490, SC(E)

  24 Jan 2018 (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2018] UKSC 1; [2018] AC 236; [2018] 2 WLR 357; [2018] 2 All ER 303; [2018] 1 Cr App R 26; [2018] WLR (D) 35; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 21.
  POLICE — Search, right of — Search warrant
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  POLICE — Search, right of — Search warrant — Police seizing claimant’s property pursuant to search warrants — Court refusing claimant’s application for disclosure of unredacted information sworn in support of warrants — Warrants subsequently quashed by consent — Police applying to retain seized material — Whether claimant entitled to disclosure of redacted information on retention application — Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c 60), s 8 (as amended by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c 15), ss 111, 113(3)(4), Sch 7, para 43(3)) — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c 16), s 59

  POLICE — Search, right of — Search warrant — Police seizing claimant’s property pursuant to search warrants — Court refusing claimant’s application for disclosure of unredacted information sworn in support of warrants — Warrants subsequently quashed by consent — Crown Court granting application by police to retain seized material — Whether magistrates’ court and Crown Court permitted to consider material which had in public interest to be withheld from disclosure to claimant — Whether material or its gist to be disclosed to claimant on claim for judicial review — Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c 60) (as amended by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c 15), ss 111, 113(3), Sch 7, para 43(3)), ss 8(1)(3), 15(3) — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c 16), s 59

  4 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Co of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq

  18 Nov 2013 [2013] EWHC 3494 (Comm); [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 942; [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep 432; [2013] CN 1836, QBD (Field J)

  28 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 835; [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 1037; [2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep 42; [2015] CN 1331; [2015] CP Rep 48, CA

  23 Dec 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  25 Oct 2017 [2017] UKSC 64; [2018] AC 690; [2017] 3 WLR 1170; [2018] 2 All ER 675; [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 1005; [2018] 1 Lloyd's Rep 29; [2017] WLR (D) 701; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 10.
  EXECUTION — Third party debt proceedings — State immunity

  EXECUTION — Third party debt proceedings — Jurisdiction to make order

  ARBITRATION — Award — Enforcement
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXECUTION — Third party debt proceedings — State immunity — Claimant applying to court to enforce arbitral award against defendant — Situs of debts — Whether court having jurisdiction to make interim third party debt orders — Whether defendant entitled to state immunity — State Immunity Act 1978, s 14 — CPR Pt 72

  EXECUTION — Third party debt proceedings — Jurisdiction to make order — Court making third party debt orders in respect of moneys payable under letters of credit issued in London for payment into New York account — Whether court having jurisdiction

  ARBITRATION — Award — Enforcement — Contracts for sale of crude oil by defendant to claimant — Disputes referred to arbitrator and award made in favour of claimant — Defendant declining to pay award — Claimant seeking to enforce award by third party debt orders in respect of letters of credit issued by London branch of French bank for payment to be made to New York bank in favour of party other than defendant — Court granting third party debt orders and appointing receiver — Whether situs of debt in England — Whether English court having jurisdiction to make orders — Whether orders to be set aside

  12 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors (Gabriel v Little, BPE Solicitors v Gabriel)

  10 May 2012 [2012] EWHC 1193 (Ch); [2013] 1 BCLC 750; [2013] WTLR 419; 15 ITELR 387, Ch D

  22 Nov 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 1513; 16 ITELR 567, CA

  25 Mar 2014 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  22 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 21; [2018] AC 599; [2017] 2 WLR 1029; [2017] 3 All ER 969; [2017] WLR (D) 199; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive. Subsequent citations: 28.
  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — Negligent misstatement
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — Negligent misstatement — Businessman agreeing to make loan to developer mistakenly believing loan for site development — Businessman engaging solicitors to draft documents for loan agreement with developer — Solicitors inadvertently misstating purpose of loan in documents — Developer using loan to purchase but not develop site — Businessman suffering losses on failure of transaction — Whether solicitors liable for losses

  5 Case(s) considered
• Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose llp (formerly Hurst Morrison Thomson llp)

  30 Jun 2014 [2014] EWHC 2085 (Ch); [2014] PNLR 27; [2014] CN 1161, Ch D (Rose J)

  25 Jun 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 629; [2016] 1 WLR 1045; [2015] WLR (D) 278, CA

  08 Dec 2015 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  11 Apr 2017 [2017] UKSC 32; [2018] AC 313; [2017] 2 WLR 1161; [2017] 3 All ER 785; [2017] WLR (D) 257; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 34.
  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care to whom — Accountant

  DAMAGES — Assessment — Avoided loss
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care to whom — Accountant — First claimant company making substantial loan in reliance on advice and positive due diligence reports received from defendant firm — First claimant indirectly owned by second claimant — Assumption of responsibility — Whether defendant owing duty of care to second claimant

  DAMAGES — Assessment — Avoided loss — Accountants giving negligent advice — Claimant making three substantial loans in reliance on advice — Borrower defaulting — Claimant’s owner subsequently refinancing loan so enabling repayment of first two loans — Whether repayment collateral matter — Whether damages to be reduced to reflect repayment

  DAMAGES — Assessment — Avoided loss — Accountants giving negligent advice in due diligence report — Lender making three substantial loans in reliance on advice — Borrower defaulting — Lender’s action against accountants for damages for breach of contract — Lender’s owner subsequently giving borrower refinancing loan thus enabling repayment to lender of first two loans — Whether repayment collateral matter — Whether lender suffering loss as result of breach — Whether principle of transferred loss applicable — Whether accountants unjustly enriched giving rise to equitable subrogation — Whether damages to be reduced to reflect repayment

  12 Case(s) considered
• Ilott v Mitson (No 2) (Ilott v The Blue Cross)

  03 Mar 2014 [2014] EWHC 542 (Fam); [2014] CN 371, Fam D (Parker J)

  27 Jul 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 797; [2016] 1 All ER 932; [2015] CN 1329, CA

  22 Feb 2016 Permission to appeal to Supreme Court given

  15 Mar 2017 [2017] UKSC 17; [2018] AC 545; [2017] 2 WLR 979; [2017] 4 All ER 545; [2017] 1 FLR 1717; [2017] WLR (D) 185; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 23.
  FAMILY PROVISION — Child of deceased — “Reasonable financial provision”

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — Estranged adult daughter
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child of deceased — “Reasonable financial provision” — Deceased making no provision for estranged daughter

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child of deceased — “Reasonable financial provision” — Deceased making no provision for estranged daughter — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s 2

  FAMILY PROVISION — Child — Estranged adult daughter — Deceased mother making no testamentary provision for estranged daughter — Whether deceased failing to make “reasonable financial provision” — Whether, if so, award from estate appropriate — Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (c 63) (as amended by Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995 (c 41), s 2), ss 1, 2, 3

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• In re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (No 4)

  14 Mar 2014 [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch); [2015] Ch 1; [2014] 3 WLR 466; [2015] 2 All ER 111; [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 813; [2015] 1 BCLC 151; [2014] WLR (D) 132, Ch D (David Richards J)

  14 May 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 485; [2016] Ch 50; [2015] 3 WLR 1205; [2016] 2 All ER 836; [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 1079; [2015] 2 BCLC 433; [2015] WLR (D) 218, CA

  03 Nov 2015 (appn all) [2015] 1 WLR 5234, SC(E)

  17 May 2017 [2017] UKSC 38; [2018] AC 465; [2017] 2 WLR 1497; [2018] 1 All ER 205; [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 629; [2017] 2 BCLC 149; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 32.
  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets — Ranking of claims which might be made against available assets of unlimited company after payment of general unsecured unsubordinated creditors — Potential liability of members for liabilities of company — Relationship between liability as members and claims as creditors — Whether claim of subordinated debt holder ranking ahead of or behind statutory interest — Whether claim ranking ahead of or behind foreign currency conversion claims — Whether foreign currency conversion claims payable out of assets — Whether contractual interest provable or statutory interest payable for period of administration if immediately followed by liquidation — Whether members’ liability to contribute in liquidation limited to funds required to pay debts and liabilities proved in liquidation — Whether contributory rule applying in administration — Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended by Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings Order 2009, Sch 1, para 75(3)), ss 74, 189 — Insolvency Rules 1986 (as amended by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003, Sch 1, para 9 and Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2005, r 12), r 2.88(1)(7)

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets — Ranking of claims which might be made against available assets of unlimited company after payment of general unsecured unsubordinated creditors — Potential liability of members for liabilities of company — Relationship between liability as members and claims as creditors — Whether claim of subordinated debt holder ranking ahead of or behind statutory interest — Whether claim ranking ahead of or behind foreign currency conversion claims — Whether foreign currency conversion claims payable out of assets — Whether contractual interest provable or statutory interest payable for period of administration if immediately followed by liquidation — Whether members’ liability to contribute in liquidation limited to funds required to pay debts and liabilities proved in liquidation — Whether contributory rule applying in administration — Insolvency Act 1986, ss 74(1), 189 — Insolvency Rules 1986 (as amended by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003, Sch 1, para 9 and Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2005, r 12), r 2.88(1)(7)

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets — Ranking of claims which might be made against available assets of unlimited company after payment of general unsecured unsubordinated creditors — Potential liability of members for company’s debts — Relationship between liability as members and claims as creditors — Whether claim of subordinated debt holder ranking ahead of or behind statutory interest — Whether claim ranking ahead of or behind foreign currency conversion claims — Whether foreign currency conversion claims payable out of assets — Whether contractual interest provable or statutory interest payable for period of administration if immediately followed by liquidation — Whether members’ liability to contribute in liquidation limited to funds required to pay debts and liabilities proved in liquidation — Whether contributory rule applying in administration — Insolvency Act 1986 (c 45), ss 74(1), 150, 189(2) — Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925) (as amended by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003 (SI 2003/1730), r 5(1), Sch 1, para 9, Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/527), rr 10, 12 and Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2010 (SI 2010/686) r 2, Sch 1, paras 83, 195), rr 2.86, 2.88(1)(7), 4.93, 4.195

  12 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Brown v Parole Board for Scotland

  31 Jul 2015 [2015] CSIH 59; [2015] SLT 568; 2016 SC 19, Ct of Sess

  01 Nov 2017 [2017] UKSC 69; [2018] AC 1; [2017] 3 WLR 1373; [2018] 1 All ER 909; [2017] WLR (D) 732; Case details; 2018 SC (UKSC) 49, SC (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge JJSC, Lord Carloway, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 8.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence

  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Prisonerʼs licence revoked during extension period of ten-year extended sentence

  PRISONS — Judicial review — Prisonerʼs licence revoked during extension period of ten-year extended sentence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Extended sentence — Prisoner released on licence but recalled to custody following breach of conditions — Release thereafter dependent on demonstrating that continued detention for public protection no longer necessary — Completion of appropriate courses recommended to assist prisoners in demonstrating to Parole Board that no longer posing risk of serious harm — Prisoner claiming failure to provide courses denying him reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation in contravention of Convention right protecting against arbitrary detention — Whether existing obligation on prison authorities to provide life or indeterminate sentence prisoners with reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation extending to recalled extended sentence prisoners after expiry of custodial term — Whether obligation arising under requirements of Convention right — Whether obligation to prisoner breached — Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c 46), s 210A (inserted by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c 37), s 86(1)) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Prisonerʼs licence revoked during extension period of ten-year extended sentence — Duty to provide reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation

  PRISONS — Judicial review — Prisonerʼs licence revoked during extension period of ten-year extended sentence — Duty to provide reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation

  4 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered