Commercial disputes

On 25 July 2025 judgment was handed down by Tom Smith KC, sitting as deputy high court judge, in Core VCT v Soho Square Capital and others [2025] EWHC 1918 (Ch), a decision concerning the law of amendment to plead new causes of action and the application of section 32 of the Limitation Act in the context of summary judgment applications. Three venture capital trusts, acting by their liquidators, had brought claims against a number of defendants.

The claimants sought, unsuccessfully,  to rely on a principle of “wrongdoer control” to postpone the running of time under section 32.

Read the full judgment

The case concerned Sanman Property Management in a lengthy battle against Birmingham developer Samuel Ginda and his companies regarding the Broad Street development known as The Square. The case revolved around a multimillion-pound development including a 220-room hotel and a 30-storey residential tower. Sanman claimed it funded the land acquisition via a loan but was unlawfully excluded from profits through transactions allegedly orchestrated by Ginda.

Following non-compliance with disclosure obligations, Sanman successfully obtained orders debarring the defendants from defending the claims. The court ruled in Sanman’s favour at a 2024 liability trial, concluding Ginda had deliberately conspired to exclude Sanman. Co-claimant Midland Premier Properties also secured a £500 million judgment against another developer, Rakesh Doal.

Despite multiple attempts by the defendants to overturn the sanctions, all have been rejected, with the latest dismissal in June 2025. The court ordered interim payments of £1.7 million to Sanman. The case involved over four years of litigation, nearly 50 court orders, and more than 30,000 pages of evidence.

Read the full judgment

Judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Richards on 20 March 2025, following a 3 week trial, in a case arising from a two partner partnership founded in the teeth of the pandemic to sell Covid tests for profit.  A dispute arose because one partner dissolved the partnership and, days later, founded an (ostensibly) new business also selling Covid tests.  One partner claimed that the partner who started the “new business” should account for profits including an extremely lucrative contract to sell Covid tests to the Danish government. The judgment dealt with issues of liability. There will be a second trial to determine quantum.

Read the full judgment

On 21 March 2025 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Expert Tooling And Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 292, an important decision concerning so-called “half-secret” commissions in the energy supply market. Unusually, the Court of Appeal granted permission on appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds on which the appellant did not succeed.

Read the full judgment

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in a decision which likely brings an end to this long running and significant litigation. In a judgment handed down on 4 February 2025, the Court of Appeal reduced Mr Darby’s sentence to time served, namely 292 days. The Defendant had been sentenced to 18 months immediate imprisonment, following the trial of a contempt application on 4 June 2024.

The decision is a helpful illustration of the wide-ranging powers available to the Court of Appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Indeed, the appeal was essentially decided on the basis of fresh evidence. It is well known that in cases which do not concern committal of a person to imprisonment, it can be extremely difficult to obtain permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.

Read the full judgment

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on issues of damages law in this case. At trial, the Court made various findings of dishonest breaches of directors’ duties against the First Defendant and of negligence against the Second Defendant firm of solicitors. The trial judge awarded damages based on the lost rental income suffered because of the delay in the development of Barrowfen’s commercial property in Tooting. The principal award of £4 million was reduced down to £1.7 million because Barrowfen was required to give credit for the increased capital value of the revised development scheme implemented compared to the original development scheme that would have been implemented at an earlier date.

Read the full judgment

The High Court dismissed the claim made in this case, concerning contractual rights to intellectual property. The High Court held that the ideas were conceived by Dr Hill during her employment and were thereby contractually owned by Touchlight, and that in any event the disputed rights were assigned to Touchlight on the true construction of Dr Hill’s employment contract. The court also found that Dr Hill shared a common assumption with Touchlight (or made representations) to the effect that Touchlight was the owner of the disputed rights, that Touchlight was entitled to assume that Dr Hill supported its applications for patent protection based upon those rights, and that Touchlight relied upon Dr Hill to its detriment.

Read the full judgment

This case concerns s. 53(1)(c) and s. 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.  It finally settles the academic debate as to whether s. 53(1)(c) applies to personalty (and holds that it does); it traces the historical development and legal effect of the ‘vendor purchaser constructive trust’; and holds that such a trust can operate to effect the surrender/release of a beneficiary’s interest in personalty in favour of the trustee.

Read the full judgment

AFRINIC is trying to oust Cloud Innovation as a member and to forfeit its valuable internet resources. AFRINIC (through a former director) sought to remove the Official Receiver that had been appointed by the Commercial Court to manage and supervise the company AFRINIC pending the determination of Cloud’s Innovation’s shareholder oppression claim. Cloud Innovation successfully opposed the removal application arguing that AFRINIC had no lawfully appointed director in place, an election to appoint directors required to be held and in all the circumstances it was just for the Official Receiver to continue in his role.

Read the full judgment

The Commercial Court has rejected an application by the Claimants in the Magomedov litigation – a $14 billion claim concerning alleged unlawful means conspiracies and bribery – for a Norwich Pharmacal order against three financial services companies, following the hearing of jurisdiction challenges and of the Claimants’ substantive application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, at a two-day hearing before Jacobs J.

Read the full judgment

Mr Justice Calver acceded to the Claimants’ application for a Norwich Pharmacal order where the defendant law firm had obtained from an unnamed business consultancy a report which was subsequently deployed in s.68 proceedings against the Claimants with a view to setting aside an arbitration award. The report was subsequently revealed to be a forgery. The judgment contains a very interesting analysis of the circumstances in which a law firm might become amenable to a Norwich Pharmacal order and the extent to which privilege might bar such relief.

Read the full judgment

The Claimants had sought c. £12m in damages for deceit, alleging that a deliberate oral misrepresentation at a meeting in 2016 led to Wirecard Bank extending credit to Monarch Airlines (which subsequently became insolvent). Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE dismissed the case in its entirety. The Judge agreed with the Defendants that German law applied to the claim and considered and applied the German law of causation, concluding that even if the misrepresentations had been made, they had not been relied upon. Of particular interest is the Judge’s consideration of “Gestmin” and the matters raised by Popplewell LJ in his 2023 COMBAR lecture “Judging Truth from Memory”.

Read the full judgment

Re Valorem Holdings Ltd represents a groundbreaking developing in the nature of injunctive relief that the court is prepared to grant to protect the rights of minority shareholders in s.994 petitions. In this case, the court was prepared to change the constitution of the board by way of interim relief to remove the respondent to the petition (the CEO) from the board and install the petitioner’s management team as directors on a without notice application. That decision was upheld on the return date.

Read the full judgment

The Claimant advanced fraud claims in deceit, the tort of causing loss by unlawful means and unlawful means conspiracy arising out of the failure of a share purchase agreement. The judgment addresses the Second Defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction on the basis that the claims did not satisfy the merits threshold that the Claimant had to show a real prospect of success on the claim. Having considered the contemporaneous documentation, the judge found that the Claimant had no real prospect of establishing the factual allegations that underlay her claims. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was therefore refused. The case shows that, in appropriate circumstances, a court will find that a claim has no real prospect of success even where allegations of fraud are made.

Read the full judgment

The claimants brought an application seeking to commit the defendant for breach of an undertaking he had given to the court. At a trial in March 2023 HHJ Pelling KC, sitting in the Commercial Court, dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal, emphasising the need to focus on the breach as actually alleged in the application notice and the importance of procedural fairness when a defendant is facing a committal application.

Read the full judgment

An important Court of Appeal case. The first instance judge had set aside and refused to continue a without notice non-compete and confidentiality injunction on grounds of alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure and the supposed adequacy of damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and made some important comments concerning (1) the need for “a sense of proportion in complex cases” when considering lack of fair presentation complaints and (2), more generally, about the appropriateness of interim injunctions in non-compete cases.

Read the full judgment

Judgment handed down by the BVI Commercial Court in what is the latest episode in the global Ablyazov litigation; in this claim against 54 defendants, Kazakhstan’s BTA Bank alleges it has been the victim of a fraudulent scheme involving the issue of high letters of credit resulting in losses of approximately US$230 million.

The judgment provides a comprehensive survey of the law applicable to service out of the jurisdiction in the BVI, including the duty of full and frank disclosure, and provides a salutary warning to litigants seeking to use BVI incorporated ‘Anchor Defendants’ as a hook through which to bring their real targets within the jurisdiction of the BVI courts.

Read the full judgment

Read the full judgment

This case involved a 7-day trial of an unfair prejudice petition, followed by a one-day quantum hearing. The petition was brought by minority shareholders in respect of two substantial property developments; at trial the Deputy Judge found numerous incidents of unfair prejudice, including a failure on behalf of the board to exercise valuable contractual rights held by the Company. Whilst the Company was heavily balance-sheet insolvent, the Deputy Judge granted a buy-out order in the Petitioners’ favour, on the basis that the Company be valued as if the unfairly prejudicial acts had not occurred, and, in addition, that part of the Company’s debt be ignored for the purposes of the buy-out order.

Read the full judgment

The Royal Court of Guernsey dismisses a substantial unfair prejudice application, which represents a key aspect of multi-faceted ongoing litigation connected with the bankruptcy in the US of once high-flying billion-dollar investment firm Highland Capital Management LP. 

The judgment contains interesting discussion of (i) whether breach of a duty to act in good faith necessarily amounts to bad faith, and (ii) the circumstances in which equitable considerations may have a place in governing the proper conduct of the affairs of a company.

Read the full judgment

Judgment has been handed down in the Court of First Instance of the DIFC by Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke.

Kirtanlal International DMCC, a steel trading company, brought a claim for damages of USD 18.51m in relation to what it said was the unlawful termination of its facility agreement with the Defendant bank. Kirtanlal claimed that the Bank acted in breach of a duty of good faith and/or a Braganza duty, alleging malice on the part of the Bank. Kirtanlal also alleged that there were breaches of tortious, fiduciary and regulatory duties by the Bank.

The Court rejected the $18.5 million damages claim.

Read the full judgment

A Privy Council judgment delivered simultaneously with the Supreme Court decision in Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International. Lord Hodge delivered two important judgments on how to define and identify the “matters” which give rise to stay of legal proceedings in favour of arbitration (in England under Section 9 Arbitration Act 1996) and certain other related issues. In doing so, these Courts have dropped the overly “granular” approach adopted by English Courts recently and opted for a more nuanced and analytical approach favoured by the Australian courts. The legal analysis in the two decisions is more or less identical.

Read the full judgment

A high-profile contractual claim brought by Hollywood actress Eva Green against film producers. She claimed she was entitled to her million-dollar fee for the film, despite its cancellation, under the terms of their agreement.

Read the full judgment

A multi-million euro, multi-faceted fraud claim in the Cayman Islands that made new law on the Cayman Fraudulent Dispositions Law.

Read the full judgment

South Africa’s largest ever private sector accounting fraud scandal. Alleged payments totalling approximately €95 million are said to have been made fraudulently. The case raises issues of German, Austrian, Swiss and BVI law.

The latest chapter in the long running and high-profile litigation instigated by the LIA seeking to recoup funds invested during the Gaddafi dictatorship in Libya. Successfully defended fraud and corruption claims to the value of £200m.

Read the full judgment

One of the largest frauds ever perpetrated involving some 118 banks which together lent a total of $126 billion over two decades.

A case involving the first statutory free-standing worldwide freezing order in Cayman. The first common law case in which a freezing injunction was granted over claims for American treble damages under RICO. Fraud resulted in losses of $5bn, with the lead claim being for $60m.

Read the full judgment

Court of Appeal case concerning the question of the Court’s power to order rectification of the register to reverse the administrative restoration of an LLP where the restoration had been obtained through the provision of fraudulent material.

Read the judgment

A complex multi-jurisdictional case involving one of Greece’s largest shipping families and their ownership of shares in two Liberian Corporations, which raises multiple conflicts of law issues and matters relating to fraudulent misappropriation of shares.

Read the full judgment

Supreme Court case establishing that a person who applies to set aside an earlier judgment on the basis of fraud does not have to demonstrate that the evidence of this fraud could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the earlier trial.

Read the full judgment

One of The Lawyer’s “Top 20 Cases of 2018”. Claims against the former Managing Director and Finance Director of the Claimant company for breach of duty and conspiracy, in connection with benefits provided to the directors from the Claimant company’s pension scheme.

Read the full judgment

Supreme Court case; acting on behalf of Cavendish in relation to the continued existence of the doctrine of penalties in both commercial and consumer contracts.

Read the full judgment