*International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc UK

Insurance Indemnity insurance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had been wrong to find that the defendant insurer's liability to the claimant insured under an employer's liability policy had restricted the indemnity that the claimant could claim under the policy for damages paid to an employee who had contracted mesothelioma by proportioning the period of the employee's period of work with the claimant to the period under which the claimant had been insured with the defendant. If an employer was liable to his employee for his employee's mesothelioma following a tortious exposure to asbestos created during an insurance period, then, for the purposes of the insuring clause in the employer's liability policy, the disease was 'caused' within the insurance period.

*VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others

Conflict of laws Tort. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by VTB Capital plc (VTB) by which VTB sought: (i) permission to serve Nutritek International Corp and others (Nutritek) out of the jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the resolution of VTB's tort claims against Nutritek was England; and (ii) permission to amend its pleaded case to raise a contractual claim based on piercing the corporate veil. Having considered the relevant legal principles, the Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeal had been entitled to reach the conclusions it had reached on both those issues.

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.