Baillie & Others v Bromhead & Co

This was a claim against a patent attorney who was sued for failing to advise that broad patent protection could not be obtained for a new glow-in-the-dark product called DualGlo. It was claimed that this had resulted in very substantial losses sustained by the company and its backers.

Amongst other matters the case involved complex issues concerning science and intellectual property law and procedure.

Download the Judgment (Crown copyright)

Armaments Ministry of Republic of China v Chuan Pu Wang

In these proceedings the Taiwanese Government brought proceedings to recover funds which they alleged were the proceeds of bribery in a notorious arms deal . The Grand Court dismissed the claim on a number of grounds that it had not been shown that there was an arguable case of bribery, limitation and that the Republic of China had no standing before the Courts.

The Secretary of State for Transport v Paragon Group UK Ltd v PHS Ltd

Trial Date: 5th June 2014

This case concerns who should bear the cost of the decision in 2010 to re-print and re-issue registration forms for every car in the United Kingdom, amounting to around £8million.

In 2006, the Defendant, Paragon, sent over 2 million car registration forms which the Claimant had printed to the Third Party, PHS, the country’s leading supplier of waste destruction services, for shredding.  Despite PHS issuing certificates purporting to confirm that the forms had been shredded, several thousand of them have since been used by criminals to sell stolen cars.

The Claimant says that required the re-print and the re-issue of all forms in the country, and claims the cost of doing so against Paragon, who defends that claim while stating that PHS is the truly liable party.

The theft of the forms and the subsequent re-issue has been the subject of extensive media coverage for a number of years.  The claim itself raises a number of interesting and complex legal and factual matters in the law of contract, deceit, bailment, and conversion.  It is also certain to involve detailed consideration of both the decision reached by Phillip Hammond shortly after the 2010 election to re-print and re-issue all registration forms in the country, as well as the failure of his predecessors as Secretary of State under previous administrations to make that decision earlier.

In particular, the case will require the Court to confront to what extent that decision was politically motivated, and to what extent government bodies are entitled to visit the costs of politically motivated decisions on third party commercial contractors.

Icebreaker and Others v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 416 (TC)

Jonathan Davey of Wilberforce Chambers has been acting for HMRC, along with Peter Blair QC of Guildhall Chambers and Imran Afzal of Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers, in the long-running Icebreaker litigation. The First-tier Tax Tribunal has just delivered its eagerly anticipated judgment in respect of the latest chapter of the dispute, which made the front page of The Times in the run up to trial under the headline “Taxman v Take That“, and has now given rise to the follow-up headline “Take That, Barlow“.

The cases involves a £350 million appeal in respect of the proper tax treatment of limited liability partnerships involved in the creative industries, and the high net worth individuals who invest in those partnerships. The case has attracted strong media attention due to the involvement of various celebrities including Gary Barlow and other members of Take That, and the interest that the Prime Minister has shown in the matter.

In a 150-page judgment, the Tax Tribunal (Judge Colin Bishopp) has found in favour of HMRC. On the central issue of whether individuals invested in the scheme as a conventional investment opportunity, the Tribunal rejected the evidence of the appellants, finding that that the “predominant purpose in entering into the scheme was to achieve a tax saving” and that “these [partnerships] were, and were recognised by individual referrals to be, tax avoidance schemes”.

It is not yet known whether the appellants will seek to appeal the decision.

Download the Judgment  (Crown Copyright)

Ennismore Fund Management Ltd v Fenris Consulting

The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands decided that hedge fund could not claw back fees it had paid to one of its portfolio managers. The case is currently due to be heard by the Privy Council.

Strategic Technologies PTE v Chuan Pu Wang

The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands gave guidance on the circumstances in which an order garnishing assets could affect the interests of third parties

Honda Motor Europe Ltd v Powell

CA: Maurice Kay, Lewison LLJ, Sir Stanley Burnton

This case is an important decision which sets the boundary between construction and rectification as a means of remedying badly drafted documents.  The case concerned a Deed of Adherence by which a new employer adhered to the Honda Group UK Pension Scheme.  It was evident from the factual background that the new employer was to adhere on the basis that its employees would receive different benefits under the Scheme than those provided to the employees of the existing participating employer.  The question for the Court was whether the Deed of Adherence was effective to achieve that result in circumstances where it simply referred to the provision of ‘the benefits of the Scheme’ to the adhering employers’ employees.

The Court of Appeal (the leading judgment was given by Lewison LJ) held that, as a matter of construction, the above wording could not be held to mean that benefits would be provided on the new benefit basis.  It considered that any problem with the Deed of Adherence could not be corrected by way of construction but instead the case was in ‘classic rectification territory’.

Download the Judgment (Crown copyright)

Civil Aviation Authority v Axis International

The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands determined a complex judicial review relating to the powers of the Cayman Islands Civil Aviation authority to certify an aerodrome as safe and in the process construed the Air Navigation Overseas Territories Order and various safety requirements.

The National Roads Authority acting by The Director of Lands and Security v (1) Abshire Bodden (2) Gene Thompson and Alfonso Wright

The National Roads Authority acting by The Director of Lands and Security -v- (1) Abshire Bodden (2) Gene Thompson and Alfonso Wright

CoA Grand Cayman – 25 Mar 2014

This case was an appeal to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands from a decision of a tribunal which had assessed the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of land needed for a new road. The main issue before the tribunal was whether the land in question had acquired an easement of way by  prescription which would have enabled the residential development of that land had it not been acquired for the purposes of the new road. The tribunal held that an easement had been acquired by long user and valued the land as suitable for residential development accordingly.

The appeal to the Grand Court was on a point of law only. This had been established in an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands in the same case. The Grand Court rejected all of the grounds of appeal save one which was that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its finding of an easement (for example the tribunal had failed to consider the law on the question of whether an easement could be used to serve residential development when the long user has been for the purposes of fruit picking). The case was remitted to the tribunal for a further hearing.

(1) Irene Michailidis (2) Jonathan Guy Phillips v Credit Agricole Indosuez

Supreme Court of Gibraltar – 6th March 2014

Credit Agricole received funds from Robin Symes a well-known London art dealer.  These funds represented the proceeds of sale of a collection of furniture stolen in 2000 by him from the heirs to his lover’s estate.  The bank was sued for knowingly assisting a breach of trust, knowing receipt and a proprietary claim.  The bank succeeded in defending all the claims at first instance.

Aon appeal that the Court of Appeal held that the bank was on notice as to some impropriety as the funds were used to secure a back to back loan.  The judge at first instance held that the arrangement was a common arrangement and, in effect, there was nothing unusual about it.

The issue before the Privy council is whether the Court of Appeal were correct to hold that the bank was on notice as to impropriety which the bank contends must be notice of something  which  indicated that there might be a third party interest in the monies – a point the Court of Appeal over looked.  The Court of Appeal also over looked the fact that the judge at first instance had found there was nothing unusual about the transaction.