Burger v Office of the Independent Adjudicator

University Examination. An economics student failed an exam twice, which precluded his progression to registration for a PhD. The defendant Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education rejected his complaint on the ground that the London School of Economics and Political Science (the LSE) was not required to disclose assessment criteria to students. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the student's application for judicial review, held that the LSE was required to disclose the assessment criteria, but that disclosure would have made no difference to the student's performance.

*Bank of New York Mellon (London Branch) v Truvo N.V and others

Contract Construction. In proceedings concerning the proper construction of a senior facilities agreement (SFA) and an intercreditor agreement (ICA), the issue was the level of consent required from the lenders under the SFA to amend the terms of the SFA so as to change, as between senior lenders and second lien lenders, the application of mandatory prepayments payable by a company (Truvo), as the original borrower under the SFA. The Commercial Court held that the proposed amendment did not require the consent of all the lenders but only the consent of the majority lenders and Truvo, which had been given. Accordingly, the purported amendment was valid and effective.

*Re: Integeral Ltd

Company Compulsory winding up. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's application for an administration order on the basis that an administration order was not reasonably likely to achieve the purpose of the proposed administration. A compulsory winding up order would be made in respect of Integeral Ltd.

*Zaki and others v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd

Investment business Investment management. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the duty of a financial institution under the Conduct of Business Rules to consider the suitability of a loan made to a customer for an investment opportunity, and held that the judge in the instant case had been entitled to find that the relevant loan had been suitable for the customer having regard in particular to his experience and market and financial information provided to him.

A & E Television Networks LLC and another company v Discovery Communications Europe Ltd

Trade mark Infringement. The Chancery Division dismissed the claims by A & E Television Networks LLC and its associated company (AETN) against Discovery Communications Europe Ltd (Discovery) for: (i) passing off in respect of the use of the names 'HISTORY, 'THE HISTORY CHANNEL', and 'MILITARY HISTORY'; and (ii) trade mark infringement in respect of the United Kingdom word mark 'THE HISTORY CHANNEL', the Community word mark 'THE HISTORY CHANNEL' and the Community trade mark for a mark comprising the word 'HISTORY' and a device consisting of the letter 'H'. Having considered, inter alia, the relevant evidence generated from a witness collection exercise, the court decided that AETN had failed to establish any infringement of their trade marks and any passing off by Discoveryby the use of the word History in the title of Discovery's channel Disc or DiscoveryHistory.

Re Coniston Hotel (Kent) LLP (in liquidation)

Insolvency Application. The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant administrators seeking, inter alia, damages and-or equitable compensation for losses sustained as a result of negligence and-or breaches of fiduciary duties to the LLP of which the claimants had been members and creditors. The defendants applied to have the claim summarily dismissed. The Chancery Division allowed the application in part, holding that claims not made under paras74 and 75 of to the Insolvency Act 1986 had not been properly made and-or had no real prospect of success.

GKN Holdings Plc and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The proceedings concerned the Franked Investment Income (FII) Group Litigation, in respect of which a group litigation order had been made to determine questions of law arising out of the taxation treatment of dividends received by UK-resident companies from non-resident subsidiaries, as compared with the treatment of dividends paid and received within wholly UK-resident groups of companies. The Chancery Division dismissed the Revenue's application for a stay to prevent any individual claimant from bringing a claim for an interim payment under CPR Pt 25. The claimants application for interim payment succeeded.

R v Druce

Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant had pleaded guilty to offences of money laundering and possession of criminal property. A confiscation order in the sum of 326,906.74 was subsequently made against the defendant. The defendant appealed stating that the figure had incorrectly included amounts not attributable to him. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in dismissing the appeal, held that the determination of the confiscation order had been neither unjust nor disproportionate.

*Re MF Global UK Ltd (in special administration)

Company Administration. Chapters 7 and 7A (CASS 7 and 7A) of the Client Assets Sourcebook section of the Financial Services Authority Handbook created a requirement for investment firms to segregate money received from or held for their clients and hold it on trust for them. In certain circumstances, including the administration or liquidation of the firm, the money held for clients (client money) had to be distributed among the clients, pro rata according to their entitlements. The administrators of a company which carried out business as broker-dealers in financial markets, sought the court's direction as to whether the client's money entitlement in respect of its position was to be valued as at the primary pooling event or by reference to the liquidation value (the hindsight principle). The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that the hindsight principle was not applicable to the determination of claims to client money for the purposes of a distribution under CASS 7A.

Phoenix Life Assurance Ltd v The Financial Services Authority

Guarantee Pension guarantee. The claimant company applied to court for a declaration that, under its single premium policy (the freedom bond), guaranteed minimum pension guarantees would be covered by the total benefits under the bond. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's interpretation of the freedom bond was correct.