*Asset Land Investment plc and another v Financial Conduct Authority

Financial services Financial Conduct Authority. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that arrangements made by the first appellant company, which was controlled by the second appellant, to enable members of the public to invest in land, amounted to collective investment schemes within the meaning of of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and, thus, 'regulated activities' for the purpose of s 19 of the Act.

Sinues v Caixabank SA and another

European Union Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of of Council Directive (EEC) 93-13. The requests had been made in proceedings between, in one case, Mr Sales Sinus and Caixabank SA and, in the other, Mr Drame Ba and Catalunya Caixa SA, both relating to the annulment of contractual terms in mortgage loan agreements.

Safe Interenvios SA v Liberbank SA and other companies

European Union Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with , and , of Directive (EC) 2005-60, as amended by . The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering.

Vogt v Financial Conduct Authority

Financial services Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). On a reference by the applicant to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) regarding the identification of the applicant in a Decision Notice for the purposes of of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the tribunal dismissed the reference having decided that the applicant had failed to prove that any of the words used in the Final Notice by the Financial Conduct Authority were such as would reasonably in the circumstances lead persons professionally associated with the applicant to believe that he was a person prejudicially affected by matters stated in any of the reasons contained in that notice.

DVB Bank SE and others v Shere Shipping Company Ltd and others

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants loaned money to the defendants. When the defendants defaulted the claimants brought an action seeking repayment of the money. They applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court granted the application as the borrowers and guarantors had no prospect of success at trial and therefore there had to be summary judgment for DVB and Melli Bank against the borrowers under the loan agreement and for DVB against the guarantors under the guarantees.

*Joint Administrators of Heritable Bank plc v The Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands hf

Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. Having considered the Credit Institutions (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004, SI2004-1045 in accordance with Council Directive (EC)2001-24 (on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Winding-Up Board of Landsbanki Islands hf against the decision of the First Division (Scotland) concerning claims submitted by Landsbanki Islands hf, a credit institution incorporated under Icelandic law, in the administration of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Heritable Bank plc, a credit institution incorporated under the with its registered office in Scotland.

*Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Administrative Court allowed an application for judicial review by a mortgagee who had received negligent financial advice. It found that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme had misdirected itself and acted irrationally in awarding only 11,522.98 by way of compensation for her losses.

*Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)

Company - Administration - Client funds - Company providing services for clients wishing to invest in securities - Client money paid into company's accounts with intention to segregate - Company failing to identify and aggregate client money - Interpretation of relevant provisions in Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) issued by Financial services Authority - Four relevant issues appealed to Court of Appeal - Appeal to Supreme Court proceeding in respect of three issues - Whether statutory trust created - Whether participation in notional client money pool dependent on actual segregation of client money - Whether primary pooling arrangements applying to client money held in house accounts - - CASS 7, 7.7.2R, 7.9.7R. . In proceedings concerning the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to three issues involving the constitution of a client money fund for clients (whose money should have been segregated by LBIE from its own accounts into separate client money accounts) in the course of which it interpreted Ch 7 of the Client Asset Sourcebook (CASS 7), issued by the Financial Services Authority pursuant to of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

*Fraser v Her Majesty's Advocate

Criminal evidence Disclosure of evidence. The Supreme Court held that, the applicable test to determine whether non-disclosure of information by the Crown had breached the right to a fair trial under art6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was that laid down in McInnes v HM Advocate (Scotland) and that, applying that test, there had been a miscarriage of justice at the defendant's trial for the murder of his wife where the Crown had failed to disclose evidence which might have materially weakened the Crown case as presented at the trial.

*Wright v Nationwide Building Society

Charging order Judgment debt. Court of Appeal, Civil Division: The court ruled that the legislative policy underlying s346(1) of the was that a creditor who had issued execution against the land of a person who was adjudged bankrupt was not entitled, as against the trustee in bankruptcy, to retain the benefit of that execution unless the execution was completed before the commencement of the bankruptcy; that was to say, unless the execution was completed before the bankruptcy order was made.