National Westminster Bank plc v Lotay and another

Guarantee Bank. The Queen's Bench Division held, in allowing a bank's claim for payment under a guarantee, that, where there was no evidence of inducement to enter the guarantee, two defendants were jointly and severally liable under the guarantee.

*Assenagon Asset Management SA v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd

Bank Securities. The Chancery Division, held that the claimant, a minority bondholder of the defendant's floating rate notes, was entitled to a declaration that a resolution passed at a Noteholders' meeting for the purpose of exchanging the current notes for new notes had been invalid by virtue of prohibitions within the trust deed to which the notes had been bound.

*National Merchant Buying Society Ltd v Bellamy and another

Guarantee Liability of guarantor. The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that two defendants were liable under a guarantee for the sums owed to an industrial and provident Society by one of its corporate members.

Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation

Bank Bank loan. The Court of Appeal, civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that it had had capacity, as a state owned corporation established by statute, to enter into derivatives contracts with the claimant in respect of oil prices.

FBME Bank Ltd v Elwes and another

Guarantee Construction. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claimant's claim in part for the payment of a loan guarantee from the second defendant, held that the second defendant was bound by the loan agreement even though it had not been signed by the claimant, and that the claimant had been entitled to refuse to release a draw down from the loan of monies when the intended use of those monies had been for a different purpose to those allowed within the plain terms of the loan facility agreement.

R v Robinson

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant was charged with money laundering while serving a sentence for drug offences. He was convicted of nine counts of disguising criminal property or the proceeds of drug trafficking and three counts of transferring criminal property or the proceeds of drug trafficking and sentenced to a total of four years' imprisonment. In allowing his appeal, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and out of line with the authorities. A sentence of three years' imprisonment was substituted.

*TAEL One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley & Co International plc

Contract Construction. The Commercial Court ordered summary judgment, awarding the claimant company US$615,597 as the payment premium payable by the borrower on repayment of a loan had accrued under condition 11.9(a) of the Loan Market Association's standard terms and conditions for par trade transactions.

Rust Consulting v PB Ltd

Indemnity Construction of indemnity clause. A company consented to settle proceedings between a consultant and a third party. The consultant sought indemnification from the company under an agreement. The first judge held the settlement was not within the indemnity clause unless estoppel was established against the company. The second judge found the company was not estopped. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held the first judge had erred in his construction of the indemnity clause, which did include good faith settlements of claims or sums reasonably incurred in the defence of claims.

*Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Allam abd others

European Union Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) ruled on the interpretation of art 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346-2000 (on insolvency proceedings) in the context of a right in rem where the property to which the right referred was situated in a state which had not yet been a member state of the European Union when the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but which had become one when the action which had given rise to the judicial proceedings was brought.

Cukurova Finance International Ltd and others v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd

Privy Council Leave to appeal. The Privy Council refused to replace a decision of the Court of Appeal of the British Virgin Islands with undertakings given by the defendant company but omitted the condition for payment by the first claimant company and its owner of US$1,446,824,709.42 into that court.