Results: 39

• Land Securities plc v Fladgate Fielder

  18 Dec 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1402; [2010] Ch 467; [2010] 2 WLR 1265; [2010] PTSR 1246; [2010] 2 All ER 741; [2009] WLR (D) 380, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 neutral. Subsequent citations: 17.
  TORT — Cause of action — Abuse of civil process
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TORT — Cause of action — Abuse of civil process — Defendant bringing judicial review proceedings challenging grant of planning permissions — Proceedings delaying claimants’ redevelopment projects — Defendants allegedly bringing proceedings as means of obtaining financial advantage from claimant rather than to quash planning decisions — Claimants bringing action for abuse of process for damages for loss caused by delay to redevelopment projects — Whether claim for abuse of process lying in respect of economic loss — Whether tort applying to judicial review proceedings — Whether defendants acting for improper or collateral advantage rendering proceedings abusive

  7 Case(s) considered

• In re Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd

  18 Jun 2009 [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch); [2010] Ch 63; [2010] 2 WLR 311; [2009] Bus LR 1627; [2009] 4 All ER 241; [2010] 1 BCLC 637; [2010] BCC 637; [2009] WLR (D) 201, Ch D (Henderson J)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  INSOLVENCY — Receivership — Industrial and provident society
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Receivership — Industrial and provident society — Bank with floating charge over society's property seeking appointment of joint receivers — Statutory prohibition on holder of floating charge from appointing administrative receiver of company — Whether industrial and provident society “company” — Whether prohibition applying to society — Whether receiver of society's property “administrative receiver” — Whether subject to provisions relating to personal liability for contract — Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended by Enterprise Act 2002, s 250(1)), ss 29(2), 37, 72A(1)

  2 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc

  08 Apr 2009 [2009] EWHC 741 (Ch); [2010] Ch 48; [2009] 3 WLR 1200, Ch D

  18 Nov 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 1284; [2011] Ch 345; [2011] 2 WLR 203; [2010] WLR (D) 294, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 31.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Representative action
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Representative action — Claimants alleging defendant party to unlawful price fixing in air freight services — Claimants suing on own behalf and on behalf of all other direct or indirect purchasers of air freight services affected by alleged price fixing — Whether all purchasers having “same interest” in claim — Whether representative element of claim to be struck out — CPR r 19.6

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Official Receiver v McKay

  16 Jun 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 467; [2010] Ch 303; [2010] 2 WLR 891; [2009] WLR (D) 191, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 2.
  BANKRUPTCY — Order — Annulment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BANKRUPTCY — Order — Annulment — Proof of debt withdrawn by creditor — No assets or liabilities remaining in bankruptcy — Whether amount of original proof of debt constituting “debts which have been proved” — Whether notwithstanding withdrawal original debt “must have been paid in full” before order could be annulled — Whether jurisdiction to annul order — Insolvency Act 1986, s 282(1)(b) — Insolvency Rules 1986, rr 6.106, 6.211

  3 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth

  31 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch); [2009] FSR 103; [2009] FSR 2, Ch D (Mann J)

  16 Dec 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1328; [2010] Ch 503; [2010] 3 WLR 333; [2010] Bus LR 904; [2010] 3 All ER 329; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1101; [2009] WLR (D) 368, CA

  27 Jul 2011 [2011] UKSC 39; [2012] 1 AC 208; [2011] 3 WLR 487; [2011] Bus LR 1211; [2011] 4 All ER 817; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011; [2011] WLR (D) 257; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 78.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright — Claimants alleging breach of US copyright by English defendants — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently bringing claim in High Court for breach of US copyright and for enforcement of default judgment — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by US claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models produced using sculpting techniques — Defendants later producing replicas of helmet and advertising them for sale on Internet — Some replica helmets sold to US customers — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently commencing claim in High Court for copyright infringement under English law and for infringment of US copyright and enforcement of US default judgment — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Whether implied assignment of first defendant's copyright to claimant — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction — Claimants alleging breach of United States copyright by English defendants — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models — Defendants later producing and selling replicas of helmet — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether purpose artistic or utilitarian — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51

  17 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

• Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd v Heath (Heath v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd)

  29 Jan 2009 [2009] EWHC 103 (Ch); [2009] Bus LR 984; [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 687, Ch D (Judge Purle QC)

  05 Nov 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1135; [2010] Ch 254; [2010] 2 WLR 1081; [2010] Bus LR 616; [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 839; [2010] 1 All ER 748; [2009] WLR (D) 320, CA

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  FAIR TRADING — Consumer credit — Agreement
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FAIR TRADING — Consumer credit — Agreement — Mortgage agreement between claimant mortgagee and defendant — Defendant obliged under agreement to discharge prior mortgage from advance but free to use remainder for own purposes — Defendant contending mortgage constituting multiple agreement in two parts providing restricted-use and unrestricted-use credit — Whether agreement in two or more parts in different “categories” — Whether enforceable — Consumer Credit Act 1974, s 18

  1 Case considered

  4 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd (Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd (Revenue and Customs Comrs intervening))

  28 Jul 2009 [2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch); [2009] 2 BCLC 400; [2009] BPIR 1093; [2009] WLR (D) 262, Ch D (Sir Andrew Morritt C)

  06 Nov 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1160; [2010] Ch 347; [2010] 3 WLR 87; [2010] Bus LR 632; [2010] 1 BCLC 747; [2010] BPIR 174; [2010] BCC 59; [2009] WLR (D) 322; The Times, 16 November 2009, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Longmore, Patten LJJ)

  27 Jul 2011 (Revenue and Customs Comrs intervening) [2011] UKSC 38; [2012] 1 AC 383; [2011] 3 WLR 521; [2011] Bus LR 1266; [2012] 1 All ER 505; [2012] 1 BCLC 163; [2011] BPIR 1223; [2011] BCC 734; [2011] WLR (D) 260; The Times, 15 August 2011; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 42.
  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Anti-deprivation rule
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Anti-deprivation rule — Contractual provisions switching priority and changing allocation of costs on insolvency — Whether provision contrary to principle that insolvent’s assets remaining available for distribution among creditors — Whether valid

  10 Case(s) considered

• Lewis v Metropolitan Properties Realisations Ltd

  21 Nov 2008 [2008] EWHC 2760 (Ch); [2009] 1 FLR 631, Ch D (Proudman J)

  12 Jun 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 448; [2010] Ch 148; [2010] 2 WLR 615; [2009] 4 All ER 141; [2010] 1 FLR 86; [2009] WLR (D) 189, CA (Laws LJ, Thomas LJ, Mann J)

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  BANKRUPTCY — Property passing to trustee — Dwelling house
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BANKRUPTCY — Property passing to trustee — Dwelling house — Bankrupt's interest in sole or principal residence passing to trustees in bankruptcy — Statutory provision for interest to revert to bankrupt at end of three-year period not applying where trustees “realised” interest during period — Trustees assigning interest to creditor for deferred contingent consideration — Whether “realises” restricted to immediate consideration paid for interest — Whether interest “realised” by assignment — Whether reverting to bankrupt three years after bankruptcy — Insolvency Act 1986, s 283A(3)(a) (as inserted by Enterprise Act 2002, s 261(1))

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Catalyst Investment Group Ltd v Lewinsohn (ARM Asset-Backed Securities SA v Lewinsohn)

  31 Jul 2009 [2009] EWHC 1964 (Ch); [2010] Ch 218; [2010] 2 WLR 839; [2010] Bus LR 350; [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 751; [2009] WLR (D) 281, Ch D

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 16.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Challenge to jurisdiction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction under Council Regulation — Challenge to jurisdiction — Corresponding proceedings between same parties in United States of America and England — English court properly seised of proceedings — Defendants applying for stay on lis alibi grounds — Whether power to grant stay — Whether US court more appropriate forum — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, arts 2, 27

  1 Case considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• Bloom v Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” GmbH & Co KG

  [2009] EWHC 1620 (Ch), QBD

  26 Jun 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 632; [2010] Ch 187; [2010] 2 WLR 349; [2009] Bus LR 1663; [2009] 2 BCLC 473; [2009] WLR (D) 211, CA

  Subsequent citations: 20.
  INJUNCTION — Jurisdiction to grant — Restraint of foreign proceedings
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Jurisdiction to grant — Restraint of foreign proceedings — High Court making administration order in respect of English company — Creditors making without notice application to foreign court for attachments of company's assets — Whether foreign proceedings breaching statutory prohibition on legal process against company in administration — Whether “legal process” confined to process within United Kingdom — Whether High Court having jurisdiction to restrain foreign attachment proceedings which interfered with administration — Circumstances in which jurisdiction to be exercised — Insolvency Act 1986, Sch B1 (as substituted by Enterprise Act 2002, s 248, Sch 16), para 43 (6)

  INJUNCTION — Jurisdiction to grant — Restraint of foreign proceedings — High Court making administration order in respect of English company — Creditors making without notice application to foreign court for attachments of company's assets — Whether foreign proceedings breaching statutory prohibition on legal process against company in administration — Whether “legal process” confined to process within United Kingdom — Whether High Court having jurisdiction to restrain foreign attachment proceedings interfering with administration — Circumstances in which jurisdiction to be exercised — Insolvency Act 1986, Sch B1, para 43(6) (as inserted by Enterprise Act 2002, s 248, Sch 16)

  3 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered