Clutterbuck v Cleghorn
This was an appeal against the striking out of the Claimants’ claim as an abuse of process. In 2010, the Claimants brought a claim against Sarah Al Amoudi, relying on various causes of action relating to alleged high-value property joint ventures in London. The Claimants lost that case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Claimants then sued the estate of Elliot Nichol, alleging that he too was involved in these alleged high-value property joint ventures.
Jonathan Seitler QC and Emer Murphy successfully argued that the Claimants ought to have sought trial directions from the judge hearing the first case in relation to their claim against Mr Nichol’s estate, in compliance with the guidance from the court in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260, [2008] 1 WLR 748. The Court of Appeal agreed, and upheld the striking out of the majority of the Claimants’ claim as an abuse of process.
Dutton v FDR Ltd
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Dutton & ors v FDR Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 200. This case concerned how an underpin should operate in relation to increases to pensions in payment for an occupational pension scheme. The underpin was required as a result of a deed of amendment executed by the trustees of the scheme in 1991. The amendment changed the rate at which pensions in payment were to be increased from 3% p.a. to 5%LPI p.a. This amendment purported to apply both to future pensionable service and past pensionable service. In relation to past pensionable service, however, the deed of amendment contravened the limitations to the trustees’ power of amendment. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the underpin should operate annually or cumulatively. An annual underpin would increase the liabilities of the scheme by considerably more than a cumulative underpin. The Court of Appeal held that a cumulative underpin should apply.
Paul Newman QC and Simon Atkinson appeared for FDR Ltd, the sponsoring employer and successful appellant.
Hautford v Rotrust Nominees
A decision of the County Court in which the Judge distinguished two Court of Appeal cases. He held that a landlord was unreasonable not to consent to its tenant making a planning application to change the use of the premises to residential use, on the grounds that the tenant might more easily enfranchise in the future. The landlord is appealing and the Court of Appeal will hear the appeal in November 2017.
Tiffany Scott acted on behalf of the claimant.
Car Giant Limited and another v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
A High Court (Technology and Construction Court) decision in a dilapidations case which involved a novel argument about how to approach valuation.
Tiffany Scott acted on behalf of the defendants.
R (on behalf of Grace Bay II Holdings Sarl and Others) v The Pensions Regulator
An application for judicial review brought by the Claimant Targets of a Warning Notice against the Defendant Pensions Regulator, with the Trustees of the Silentnight Pension Scheme intervening as an Interested Party. The Trustees and the Regulator successfully argued that permission for judicial review should be refused on the grounds that the Targets had an alternative remedy by reason of the statutory procedure set out in The Pensions Act 2004.
Jonathan Hilliard QC and Jamie Holmes appeared with Monica Carss-Frisk QC for the Trustees.
The Regulator was represented by Fenella Morris QC and Thomas Robinson.
The Targets were represented by Michael Fordham QC, Iain Steele, James McCreath and Ajay Ratan.
Akita Holdings Ltd v Attorney General of the Turks & Caicos Islands
David Phillips QC appeared in the Privy Council on 1 February 2017 in the case of Akita Holdings Ltd v Attorney General of the Turks & Caicos Islands. The appeal is one of the many pieces of litigation conducted by David as part of the islands’ Civil Recovery Programme. The issues before the Board concern the correct status of a knowing/constructive recipient (constructive trustee or accountable in equity/charged with accessory liability), and the extent of the relief available to the wronged party.
The hearing can be viewed at https://www.jcpc.uk/watch/jcpc-2016-0064/010217-am.html : David’s submissions start after 1 hour 25 minutes.
Tang v Tang
Brian Green QC appeared with a junior from the Hong Kong bar in the plaintiff respondent’s successful resistance of the defendant appellants’ appeal on the question of whether a repayment by the defendant of monies misapplied by him as a trustee at a time when property into which he had invested had not increased in value, extinguished a beneficiary’s later claim to profit accruing on such investment thereafter, through to the taking of an account 13 years later.
The defendants (appellants) were represented by Robert Ham QC, Mr Denis Chang and Ms Candy Chain.
Akers v Samba
Brian Green QC appeared with Mark Hapgood QC, Lord Pannick QC and Alan Roxburgh in Samba’s successful appeal to the Supreme Court on the application of section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 and the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 to a disposition of legal title to Saudi shares held under a Cayman Islands trust which Akers (as liquidator) claimed to be entitled to in equity.
Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corp
Jonathan Seitler QC appeared for the successful Claimant, a well-known art gallery seeking to restrain its landlord’s development on the grounds of noise and nuisance when the landlord sought to develop the upper floors of its building.
Mortgage Agency Services Number One Ltd v Cripps Harries LLP
Jonathan Seitler QC and Jonathan Chew appeared for the successful Defendant solicitors in an action brought by a lender alleging that they acted fraudulently in not revealing details of their borrower client’s financial status in the course of the transaction.