Akhtar v Bhopal Productions (UK) Ltd and others

Costs Order for costs. The claimant brought a claim for the alleged infringement by the defendants of the copyright in a film. The claimant applied to amend the particulars of claim, which was criticised by the defendants as being inadequate. A judge, dismissing the application, held that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in that the particulars of claim was wholly inadequate. The defendants sought their costs, which exceeded the 3,000 cap for applications in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court. The Chancery Division held that costs awarded against an unreasonable party, pursuant to CPR 63.26(2) were not free of the stage caps on costs set out in Tables A and B of Practice Direction 45. A single stage cap of 3,000 applied to all the defendants in relation to the costs of the application.

*Tartsinis v Navona Management Company

Contract Rectification. The claimant and another businessman sold shares in a shipping company to the defendant company. A dispute arose as to the value of the shares. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the agreement between the parties had not reflected their common intention, and an order for rectification would be made.

BPC Hotels Ltd and others v Brooke North (a firm)

Practice Striking out. After an unsuccessful attempt to finance the building of a hotel, the claimants were faced with the repossession of their house. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendant firm, which had provided them with advice, had conspired to destroy documents that proved that its advice had been negligent. The defendants applied to strike out the claims. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the claims were hopeless and the application would be allowed.

*Goldman Sachs International v Videocon Global Ltd and another

Contract Condition. Following early termination by the claimant of an ISDA Master Agreement, the claimant sought summary judgment on its claim for money said to be owed. The application was dismissed due to the claimant's failure to provide the defendants with sufficient details of how the sum claimed had been calculated. The claimant provided further calculations, more than two years after termination of the agreement, and again applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the application as, on the proper construction of cl6(d) of the ISDA Master Agreement, the second notification, although late, had been effective and so the sums owed had been payable under that clause.

*Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov and others

Costs Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the claimant bank had applied to commit the first defendant, Sergey Maksimov, to prison for contempt of court for allegedly breaching worldwide freezing orders. The court had dismissed most of the bank's grounds of contempt. The Commercial Court held that the appropriate costs order to make in the exercise of its discretion was that the bank should pay 80% of Maksimov's costs since January 2014. It further ordered that an interim payment of 175,000 was appropriate.

*Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

European Union Taxation. The test claimants sought to rely on their mistake-based claims in order to recover all the tax which they had overpaid. The Chancery Division determined the methods for calculating unlawful tax, under s 18 (Sch D, Case V) of the and advance corporation tax. It further determined that the claimants were entitled to restitution and the elements of that restitution.

*Charalambous and another v NG and another

Landlord and tenant Tenancy. The tenants had paid a deposit for a property under the terms of their tenancy agreement. Subsequently, the statutory tenancy deposit scheme was introduced, but the deposit was never placed in such a scheme. The landlady purported to serve notice to quit under s21 of the and the tenants challenged the validity of that notice because of the failure to comply with the statutory deposit scheme. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that s215 of the as amended by the Localism Act 2004 and enacting Order, had not been retrospective in their operation and, since the tenants' deposit had never been kept in an authorised scheme, the possession notice had been invalid.

Savoye and another company v Spicers Ltd

Building contract Adjudication. The claimants fitted machinery at the defendant's premises. The claimants brought proceedings for outstanding sums. An adjudicator held for the claimants, and they sought to enforce the adjudicator's decision. The Technology and Construction Court held that the contract between the parties had involved 'construction operations', and the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to decide on the dispute.

Downing v Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Damages Assessment. A compromise made on liability and causation in a claim by the claimant against the defendant hospital in respect of the 'catastrophic' consequences of an operation carried out in the defendant's hospital with the intention of ameliorating his loud snoring. In order to decided the appropriate basis of the award of damages, the Queen's Bench Division held that on the evidence there was no change of significant chance of long term improvement in the claimant's condition.

Seton House Group Ltd and another v Mercer Ltd

Practice Summary judgment. The proceedings concerned the Britax pension fund. Following the decision in Barber-v-Guardian Royal Exchange Group (), it had become necessary for the employer to equalise the normal pensionable age (NPA) of members of fund. The claimants brought a claim contending that a trust deed and rules executed in 2000 had been ineffective to change the NPA as from 1991 as required. They contended that the defendant, which had provided actuarial and investment consultancy services to the second claimant employer, had been negligent in the advice it had provided. A master granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the claim was time-barred. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the master had not applied the wrong test in determining the issue of constructive knowledge.