CA asked DPP to issue guidance for prosecutors as to when instituting confiscation proceedings would be appropriate.
|
Where the guarantor of a company loan from a bank was also the company’s main shareholder and sole director and on the facts did not believe the audited accounts, the fact that they were negligently prepared and grossly overstated the company’s profits and the company was subsequently liquidated did not allow the guarantor to recover damages. On the evidence the auditor owed no duty of care to the guarantor because even those it was very probably that there might be a guaranto ...
|
The UKIPO had been right to refuse to restore a patent which had lapsed due to non-payment of a renewal fee. The proprietor of the patent had not established that it had taken reasonable care to ensure that the fees were paid by the due date. In particular, the evidence did not show that the proprietor had not been in a financial position to make the payment.
|
The Claimant was a firm of solicitors who had instructed a barrister to provide advice and represent three claimants at the trial of the underlying action. Shortly before trial both solicitors and Counsel became concerned as to whether one of the claimants was capable of providing instructions. After consultation an application was made to the Court to adjourn the trial in order to determine whether that claimant should be represented by a litigation friend. Despite being ordered to atten ...
|
The Claimant, a contractor, made a summary judgement application for enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. The Defendant agued that there was no crystallised dispute in relation to the claim because the claim was based on new expert evidence which had only been presented during the adjudication. Therefore, the Defendant argued, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. The Defendant also argued that the volume of new evidence was such that it did not have a fair opportunity to respon ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the requirement in the Health and Safety Executive’s policy on granting exemptions from health and safety legislation, that there should be no reasonably practicable alternative way of complying with the statutory provision, was directed to the position of the applicant seeking the exemption rather than to the world at large. The issue was an objective question of construction; it did not matter what the policy maker intended the policy to mean or what ...
|
A judge had been entitled to conclude that there had been a "reasonable cause for the delay" in executing an extradition order for the purposes of the extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) where other extradition proceedings were in progress in the English courts under EAWs issued by the same issuing authority and the person subject to the extradition order should not be deprived of the opportunity to be present and give evidence at the hearing in those proceedings. Assuming that the issuing jud ...
|
The company’s administrators sought to recover sums paid over to its alleged de facto directors on the basis of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. One of the defendants gave an undertaking to administrators to provide information and documents, but did not comply with it. A freezing injunction was obtained together with an order requiring disclosure in default of which his defence was to be struck out. The defendant failed to comply and sought successfully relief from sanctions. On ...
|
Court Must Consider Whether Unless Order Still Appropriate in all the Circumstances The Court of Appeal held that, when exercising the power under CPR 3.9 to grant relief from sanctions for failure to comply with an Unless Order, the correct test to be applied was whether the order remained a proper order in the circumstances at the time of the application for relief. The trial judge had misdirected himself in considering whether the Respondent had a reasonable prospect of success ...
|
C was supplier of software to D under a licence agreement that involved payment of a maintenance fee each year until such time as D gave written notice to C that it no longer required maintenance. In 2007, D purchased a licence extension that provided (amongst other things) as follows: “At the Customer's option, annual maintenance for the licence extension (including upgrade) contained herein for the period 26th October 2007 to 25th October 2008 shall be 17.5% of £750,000” ...
|
| 1 |