Novoship (UK) Ltd and others v Nikitin and others [2014] EWCA 908; [2014] WLR (D) 297
‘The remedy of an account of profits was available against one who dishonestly assisted a fiduciary to breach his fiduciary obligations, even if that breach did not involve a misapplication of trust property.
WLR Daily, 4th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Report responding to concerns raised in the 2012 Kay Review that uncertainty about their legal duties leads investors to focus on short-term movements in share price rather than making long-term investment decisions based on the fundamental value of a company.’
Law Commission, 1st July 2014
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
“Today [22 October] the Law Commission publishes a consultation paper reviewing how ‘fiduciary duties’ apply to investment intermediaries. The paper traces a chain of intermediaries from an individual, saving for a pension, to the registered shareholder of a UK company. It looks at the obligations of those in the chain to act in the interests of savers.”
Law Commission, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
“Consultation reviewing the obligations on investment intermediaries to act in the interests of savers.”
Law Commission, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
Regina (Nash) v Barnet London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1004; [2013] WLR (D) 335
“A local authority’s duty to consult under section 3(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 arose at a formative stage of the relevant process when the authority made arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions were exercised within section 3(1) of the Act. For the purposes of CPR r 54.5, a judicial review claim challenging the authority’s lack of consultation had to be brought within three months of the date when the grounds to make the claim had first arisen. That was the date the defendant authority had taken the decision to enter the procurement process for outsourcing, and since the claim had not been issued until the decision to enter into the contracts had been taken, it was out of time.”
WLR Daily, 2nd August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In FHR European Ventures LLP & ors v Mankarious & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17 the Court of Appeal returned to the question when an agent holds proceeds of a breach of fiduciary duty as constructive trustee for his principal. The decision is required reading for sports lawyers asked to advise on breach of fiduciary duty cases. That is so not least because FHR addresses the decision in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 347 in which the Court considered that it was bound by Lister & Co v Stubbs 45 Ch D 1 (CA) to reject the broad approach to the imposition of constructive trusts in this field which was described in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324 (PC).”
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 20th May 2013
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
“Employment litigation in the High Court is one of the most interesting and dynamic areas of practice. The cases tend to be fought at the point where countervailing currents commercial and employment law meet and many of the cases turn on resolving the tension between a bargain struck between commercial men and the portmanteau term of trust and confidence. That tension presents an opportunity for the creative advisor and a pitfall for the unwary”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 10th May 2013
Source: www.11kbw.com
“A Supreme Court ruling on the circumstances in which courts can set aside decisions made wrongly by trustees is ‘likely to create uncertainty’ due to the subjective nature of the test, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 10th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Campaigners against Barnet council’s radical plan to outsource hundreds of millions of pounds worth of services, dubbed easyCouncil, are to take their case to the appeal court after a judge ruled their objection to a £320m contract had come too late.”
The Guardian, 29th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“What are the duties of an Employee who is approached by a family member to supply goods or services to his Employer?”
No. 5 Chambers, 18th March 2013
Source: www.no5.com
Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council: [2012] EWCA Civ 1439; [2012] WLR (D) 326
“It was not appropriate to circumscribe a local authority’s power to acquire houses in order to provide accommodation for unintentionally homeless in priority need by limiting the power to acquire at a reasonable price.”
WLR daily, 13th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Employment litigation in the High Court is one of the most interesting and dynamic areas of practice. The cases tend to be fought at the point where countervailing currents commercial law and employment law meet and many of the cases turn on resolving the tension between the bargain struck between commercial men and the implied term of trust and confidence. That tension presents an opportunity for the creative and a pitfall for the unwary.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 28th May 2012
Source: www.11kbw.com
“Were the statutory duties in the Companies Act 2006 intended to be simply a replacement without change?”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 23rd November 2011
Source: www.11kbw.com
Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd [2010] UKSC 55; [2010] WLR (D) 218
“The sale of a company’s assets to a shareholder was not an unlawful distribution of assets if the court concluded that it was a genuine commercial transaction at arm’s length even if it appeared with hindsight that the sale was at an undervalue. The court’s conclusion depended on a realistic assessment of all the relevant facts and not simply on a retrospective valuation exercise in isolation from all other inquiries. The essential issue was how the transaction was to be characterised, and that was a matter of substance and not form.”
WLR Daily, 8th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
O’Donnell v Shanahan and another [2009] EWCA Civ 751; [2009] WLR (D) 252
“A company director had a duty to inform the company of a relevant business opportunity and could not make his own decision that the company would not be interested, and without more, appropriate the opportunity to himself.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another [2009] EWCA Civ 629; [2009] WLR (D) 214
“The sale of a company’s assets at an under value by a company having control of selling and buying companies did not make the sale a dressed up unlawful distribution of its assets or ultra vires the company if the person arranging the sale honestly believed the transaction to be other than a gratuitous distribution of the company’s assets to shareholder, even though that person was the director of the selling and buying companies.”
WLR Daily, 29th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Imageview Management Ltd v Jack
Court of Appeal
“An agent who made a secret deal with his principal’s employer breached his fiduciary duty to his principal, forfeited his agency fee and had to account for the secret profit.”
The Times, 24th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A mobile phone airtime reseller did not have a legal duty to take network O2 to court on behalf of a company which had sold it its subscriber base, the High Court has said. The Court said the claim was based on a mistaken interpretation of a contract.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th March 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] WLR (D) 56
“An agent when negotiating with another person on behalf of his principal breached the fiduciary duty which he owed to his principal if at the same time he made with the other person an undisclosed side deal for his own benefit and there were a real possibility of conflict of interest. In such a case the agent was required to account to the principal in respect of the secret commission so received and was not entitled to receive any agency fees from the principal.”
WLR Daily, 17th February 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024