Posted on: November 7th, 2016
The recent judgment of Mr Justice Mann, sitting in the Chancery Division in the case of Mortgage Agency Services Number One Limited v Cripps Harries LLP  EWHC 2482, highlights the importance of instructing specialist lawyers such as PCB Litigation, who understand the components of – and know what is required to claim and establish – fraud.
The case involved the claimant, the lender, claiming damages for fraud and conspiracy against the defendant, the borrower’s solicitors. During the course of a seven day trial, the claimant’s counsel submitted that a solicitor and legal executive in the defendant firm had deliberately and falsely misled it into lending to the defendant’s client by dishonestly making several misrepresentations.
Posted on: October 19th, 2016
Whilst there are circumstances in which a fiduciary can lose its right to remuneration, a recent case has considered whether that principle extends to the profit share of a partner in a partnership or as a member of a LLP.
In Hosking v Marathon Asset Management LLP, an arbitrator had held that a partner was liable to a LLP for breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties in relation to the potential commencement of a new business. As well as being ordered to pay equitable compensation of £1.38 million, the partner in question was ordered to return 50% of the profit share he received during the relevant period in which the breaches had occurred.
Posted on: October 6th, 2016
The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 30 June 2005 entered into force in Singapore on 1 October 2016. The Convention applies to choice of court agreements in “civil or commercial matters” (subject to certain exclusions, for example, consumer and employment contracts).
The Hague Convention binds all the countries of the European Union (except Denmark) as well as Mexico and, now, Singapore. The US and Ukraine have also signed the Convention but have not ratified it yet.
Post Brexit, the UK may want to ratify the Convention in its own right (not as part of the EU) to ensure that:
i) Jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English courts would remain effective; and
ii) English judgments would continue to be recognised and enforced in other Convention States.
Posted on: September 20th, 2016
It has been reported this week that, in the UK alone, an incredible five million people had to cancel their debit and credit cards within the last twelve months, with one in ten adults needing to change their cards after a cyberattack, identity theft or card cloning incident. Even more staggering is that more than £2 billion was stolen in total as a result of bank fraud.
These figures are symptomatic of the ever-increasing scourge of bank fraud and in particular cybercrime on individuals and businesses alike.
Posted on: August 15th, 2016
Following the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza  UKSC 42, the rule that a claim should be unenforceable if a claimant has to rely on its own illegality to establish it (Tinsley v Milligan  1 AC 340) is no longer to be followed. In Patel v Mirza, P had given M a significant sum of money to invest based on insider information. The act would have amounted to insider dealing. The investment never materialised and P sought to recover the money from M.
Posted on: August 11th, 2016
The Supreme Court in Willers v Joyce  UKSC 43 has held that it is open to a defendant to an underlying civil court action to bring a claim against an unsuccessful claimant for malicious prosecution. The claim by the applicant, which was to recover costs in excess of those awarded on a standard basis in the underlying claim plus damages for loss of reputation, health and earnings, was not an abuse of the court’s process. Whilst it was understandable the costs had been awarded on a standard basis in the underlying claim, there is little doubt that the costs order did not make good the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the vexatious proceedings.
Posted on: August 9th, 2016
In a welcome outcome for victims of fraud, on 27 July 2016 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the appeal in Hayward (Respondent) v Zurich Insurance Company Plc (Appellant)  UKSC 48 (see our previous post for the background: http://www.pcblitigation.com/media/does-fraud-unravel-all/), unanimously ruling that the insurer’s appeal should be allowed, the settlement agreement should be set aside and Mr Hayward should be paid a reduced sum. Given that it could not fairly be said that the insurer had full knowledge of the facts, the lead judgment by Lord Clarke stated that he could not “allow Mr Hayward to retain moneys which he only obtained by fraud” as “Mr Hayward knew, Zurich was settling on false basis”.
Posted on: June 27th, 2016
Claimants looking to ensure a defendant does not take steps to dissipate his assets prior to judgment are assisted by the introduction of the new ‘notification injunction’ granted by the court in Holyoake v Candy  EWHC 970 (ch).
The notification injunction acts as a freezing order in that it requires a defendant to notify the claimant before taking any steps to dispose of or deal with any assets covered by the order. No freeze is actually placed on the assets and as a result the level of security required to support the notification injunction is likely to be less.
Posted on: February 24th, 2016
One of the tasks with which lawyers are faced in the electronic age is how best to deal with the sheer volume of potential documents that could be the subject of a disclosure exercise. One of the potential solutions – predictive coding – has been the subject of much debate but (in this jurisdiction at least) lacked judicial comment. A recent judgment has changed that.
The process of predictive coding requires a sample of documents to be reviewed by a senior lawyer familiar with the case to decide on those documents’ relevance.
Posted on: November 16th, 2015
Whilst the English Courts continue to remain attractive to overseas claimants, for defendants in such cases one of the risks that they face is whether they will be able to recover their costs should they successfully resist the claims against them. In that regard, the ability of defendants to seek security for costs is an important right, and a recent case confirmed the appropriate test in circumstances in which a claimant does not reside in one of various European states.
In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and others v Bestfort Development LLP and others  EWHC 3197 (Ch), the defendants appealed against an order rejecting their application against Claimant companies based in Georgia.