European Union Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 93-13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Aziz and the Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa), concerning the validity of certain terms of a mortgage loan agreement entered into by those parties.
Bank Bank loan. The Chancery Division considered a claim arising out of the purchase of property in London by the defendants, who were all linked to a powerful family in Pakistan. The defendants had failed to repay the claimant bank for loans taken out by them. The court held that, inter alia, that there had been no misrepresentation by the bank and that agreements between the parties had been carried out properly by the bank.
Fraud Employment. IG Index alleged that its employee had perpetrated a fraud against it in concert with the other defendants, in some cases through their agents. The Queen's Bench Division held that the employee had been responsible for a fraud in breach of his fiduciary duty. The other defendants were liable for their fraudulent conduct, their dishonest assistance of the employee's fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty and their knowing receipt or vicariously liable for such conduct by their agents.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant bank's application for continuation of a freezing injunction as it was just and convenient to continue it. the court also allowed the claimant's application for permission to cross-examine the third defendant as to the first and third defendants' assets as there was no other realistic method that was likely to be effective in obtaining details of the first and third defendants' assets.
European Union Taxation. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to accept the claims by the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme (trustees) that: (i) the absence of a tax credit for foreign income dividends, by reason of s246C of the constituted a prima facie breach of art 56 of the EC Treaty (Free Movement of Capital) (the Treaty) which was not justified; and (ii) s 231(1) of that Act, in restricting tax credits on dividends to dividends received from United Kingdom-resident companies, was a clear breach of art 56 of the Treaty, but to decide that of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applied, with the result that the those claims were time-barred.
Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Supreme Court, in dismissing an appeal by Barclays Bank plc, held that it had not been entitled to a cross-undertaking in damages in circumstances where the Financial Services Authority (FSA) had obtained a freezing injunction against a company which held accounts with the bank. The court held that there was no general rule that an authority like the FSA acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give such an undertaking and that there were no particular circumstances why it ought to be required to do so in the instant case.
Practice Summary judgment. The Commercial Court considered an application for summary judgment in a dispute regarding a contract concerning transportation of crude oil. The court held that the defendant's defence had a real prospect of success at trial, and accordingly, the application would be dismissed.
Company Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that it would be an impermissible re-writing of an agreement between the parties to imply a term that they did not vote to remove him as a director of a company in circumstances where the articles of association permitted removal of directors and the agreement between the parties provided for nominations for directorships but was silent on the subject of removal of directors under the Articles.
Practice Summary judgment. An insolvency practitioner applied for summary judgment in respect of a claim brought against him by a liquidator of a company under s238(4)(a) of the (transactions at an undervalue). The Companies Court granted the application, having held that there was no prospect of the claim succeeding where the company had not entered into a transaction which the liquidator could review.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in refusing the defendants' application to discharge a worldwide freezing order obtained without notice against them by the claimant company, held that, for the time being, such an order was justified. There was a real risk of dissipation of the defendants' assets and there was a good arguable case of fraudulent misrepresentation by the second and third defendants.