CA 1154 – Office Depot International BV and other companies v Holdham SA and other companies  EWHC 2115 (Ch)
This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 15/08/2019
This case deals with the various mechanisms for staying an action in circumstances where there are parallel proceedings yet to be finally determined in a different jurisdiction. In particular, it considers the applicable tests and criteria pursuant to Article 30 of the Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) as well as the applicability of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically CPR 11(1)(b).
CPR 52 reforms- how have the restrictions on appeal been tackled so far
A discussion as to whether Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) reforms on permission to appeal have had any impact on procedural fairness and access to justice.
CA 1137 – Hanson & Ors v Carlino & Anor  EWHC 1940 (Ch) (24 May 2019)
This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 02/08/2019
A question which has troubled the courts in recent years is whether or not default judgment can be entered in circumstances in which an acknowledgment of service has been filed late, but prior to the court determining the application for default judgment. Unfortunately, the judge in Hanson, rather than deciding this point, held that relief from sanction principles applied in the instant case as no defence had been filed at all, such that default judgment should be entered upon the failure of the defendant’s application for an extension of time to file his defence. This analysis considers this case alongside other recent judgments which have grappled with this question but, until such a case reaches the Court of Appeal, or the rules are clarified, this is an issue which is likely to prove highly contentious, with a large body of conflicting first instance decisions.
CA 1101 – Bridgehouse (Bradford No.2) v BAE Systems plc  EWHC 17668 (Comm)
In the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Cockerill upheld, on appeal pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), a sole arbitrator’s decision that a contract was validly terminated based upon a ‘Default Event’, namely, that Bridgehouse (Bradford No.2) (BB2) was struck off the register of companies. While BB2 was restored to the register shortly after, the arbitrator had correctly decided that BB2 had defaulted the moment it was struck off. It was not appropriate for the effective termination to be reassessed retrospectively by way of the company’s restoration. Such default event clauses clearly operate as a useful risk management tool in respect of termination of contracts in the event of a party falling into a state of administrative disarray, and the case provides certainty in terms of when and how such a clause can be utilised.
This article was first published by LexisNexis on 15/7/2019
CA 1093 – UK Insurance Ltd v Carillion
The case UK Insurance v Carillion Specialist Services provides a helpful reminder of the courts’ approach to determining the requisite date of knowledge for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. The court held that the application of this provision resulted in the relevant claim in this case being wholly time-barred and awarded summary judgment in favour of the second defendant.
First published by LexisNexis on 04/07/2019
LexisPSL 1047 – Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors Wojakovski
The background to the case surrounds claims by Mr Wojakovski’s wife’s family, that he unlawfully extracted £14.5m from Tonstate Group Ltd (TGL), of which he was a former chief-executive. While this case does not delve into the substance of those claims to any great extent, it provides a helpful reminder of the availability of a double derivative claim at common law in contrast to a statutory derivative claim, as well as applications for indemnities in respect of the costs of such claims. Mr and Mrs Matyas sought to continue actions brought by various companies as double derivative actions and sought an indemnity out of the assets of those companies in respect of the costs of pursuing those claims. Mr. Wojakovski sought an injunction preventing various of the companies involved from using their assets to fund the personal costs of Mr and Mrs Matyas, as well as restraining TGL from using their assets to fund the main action.
First published on 29 May 2019 by Lexis®PSL