Contract Breach. Where a husband (or former husband) had defaulted on his obligations under a deed to make certain financial provision to his wife (or former wife), the Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the deed was valid and enforceable and that the wife was entitled to damages for repudiation of contract on account of the husband's default.
Company Insolvency. The respondent directors, by effecting three credits against their directors' loan accounts with the second applicant company, had acted in breach of their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the creditors of the company, contrary to of the Companies Act 2006 (). The Chancery Division so held on an application by the company's liquidator. The court further ruled that the directors had misapplied the company's assets for their own benefitand had failed to exercise their powers for proper purposes, contrary to s171, and were, accordingly, misfeasant for the purposes of s212 of the . The directors were ordered, jointly and severally, to repay the sum of 758,020 to the company, together with interest.
Contract Termination. The claimant company's claim against the defendant was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed, in a dispute about the dismissal of AM, who was the CEO of a company based in India. Among other things, the defendant's contract had been validly terminated, and he had been guilty of gross misconduct in seeking to remove AM and four others, and carrying out a campaign against AM.
European Union Consumer protection. and of Council Directive (EEC) 93-13 did not apply to proceedings brought by the successful bidder in an auction of immovable property, following extrajudicial enforcement of a mortgage granted over that property by a consumer to a creditor acting in the course of trade, provided that, first, the proceedings were independent of the legal relationship between that creditor and the consumer and, second, the mortgage had been enforced, the immovable property sold, the real rights over that property transferred, and the consumer had not availed himself of the legal remedies provided in that context. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling concerning the procedure for recognising the applicant bank's real rights resulting from its acquisition of the respondent's dwelling in an auction.
Confidential information Disclosure. Subject to a few exceptions, a number of redactions would be made to information in earlier judgments so that it could be provided to the general public. The harm that would be done by the publication of the information was a sufficiently powerful reason to justify redaction, and the resulting harm to the telecommunications market was unwarranted.
Libel and slander Qualified privilege. The defendants had made out their defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest in the claimant's libel proceedings against them. The Queen's Bench Division further rejected the claimant's claim for misuse of confidential information.
European Union Freedom of movement. The objectives of the and the principle of minimum pricing per unit of alcohol could justify the European Union market interference under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) art36 and under the parallel principles governing wine under the common agricultural policy (CAP) as set out in TFEU art39 and EU Regulation1308-2013 (the single CMO Regulation). That minimum pricing would involve a market distortion, including of EU trade and competition, was accepted. However, the Supreme Court held that it was impossible to conclude that that could or should be regarded as outweighing the health benefits which were intended by minimum pricing.
Insolvency Statutory demand. Any fiduciary duty which the respondent de jure director (and creditor) of a company in administration had had to act in the interests of the company had been to look to the interests of its secured creditors, and not to the creditors as a whole. So held the Bankruptcy Court in dismissing an application to set aside a statutory demand, which had been based on a guarantee signed by the applicant in respect of the respondent's loan to the company. Among other things, the court dismissed the applicant's arguments that the statutory demand should be set aside on the grounds of misrepresentation, collateral contract or estoppel. Further, it held that it was fanciful to argue that the applicant might have a counterclaim, set off or cross-demand (equalling equalled or exceeding his liability under the guarantee) on the basis that the respondent had acted positively to persuade potential investors not to invest in the company and-or to seek to have his plan for a pre-pack administration concerning the company agreed.
Contract Breach. The defendant company was liable for a fire that caused damage to the claimant college's premises, when a drinks machine supplied and maintained by the defendant broke. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant had made out its case in relation to breach, causation and loss, and was entitled to damages.
Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The claimants were granted injunctive relief against the first four defendants in respect of restrictive covenants contained in their service agreements pending trial and also springboard relief for alleged breach of their duties under the contracts, by creating a competing business. However, the Queen's Bench Division refused the claimants' applications for orders for disclosure.