Freezing orders would be continued as it had been established that there was at least a triable issue as to whether the parties, which had been subject to the injunctions, had acted dishonestly in a series of transactions aimed at avoiding the payment of VAT by means of acquisition frauds.
|
A claim by a bankrupt's wife seeking to challenge the conduct of a trustee during the course of her husband's bankruptcy proceedings had been devoid of any merit, and accordingly an order for judgment in default of defence was set aside and the claim dismissed.
|
Where a fiduciary had made a profit from inducing the respondents, by his fraudulent representations, to enter into a joint venture to acquire a hotel, the appropriate remedy was that the fiduciary should disgorge all the profits, whether of a revenue or capital nature, subject to any allowances permitted by the court on the taking of the account.
|
An action for a limitation decree under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 could be brought in England in the absence of an action to enforce a claim subject to limitation. The existence of a limitation decree in England did not make the pursuit of liability proceedings in Texas unconscionable.
|
CPR 69.7(2) was confined to remuneration of a receiver, and the language of that rule could not be stretched to include expenses of the receiver. In the instant case, the judge exercised his discretion under the rule and ordered Customs to pay remuneration of a receiver appointed under section 77(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
|
The mere fact that two parties proposed in a letter that their agreement should be contained in a formal contract to be drawn and signed in the future did not preclude the conclusion that they had already informally contractually committed themselves on exactly the same terms.
|
An offer by a clearly solvent defendant to settle a money claim should usually be treated as having the same effect as a payment into court provided it satisfied certain conditions, was open for at least 21 days and was a genuine not a sham offer.
|
High Court proceedings claiming that the provisions of United Kingdom tax legislation restricting group relief to companies resident or carrying on an economic activity in the UK were incompatible with Community law were stayed in the case of companies which had made or could still make a claim for group relief since in such cases the tax appeal commissioners had exclusive statutory jurisdiction.
|
Acts and omissions that were not causative of loss could be taken into account for the purpose of assessing what, if any, contribution should be ordered pursuant to section 2 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. However, the role of non-causative factors should be a limited one.
|
Although section 2 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 was not concerned solely with causative responsibility, the role of non-causative factors in apportioning damages should be limited.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |