*Sejean v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided not to adjust the penalty of 650,000 it had imposed on the applicant in respect of market abuse in circumstances where the applicant had failed to provide clear evidence of excessive hardship.

Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin and another

Warranty Breach. The claimant company purchased shares in a private limited company from the defendants. It claimed damages against the defendants for breach of warranties and misrepresentations in the company's accounts. The Chancery Division found no representations had been made but there had been breaches of the warranties. It awarded the claimant damages of 4.75m.

*Arch Financial Products LLP and others v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed an application pursuant to r14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for an order prohibiting the publication of decision notices issued by the respondent Financial Services Authority as well as an application for a direction that the register of references maintained by the Upper Tribunal be amended so as not to include particulars of the references made by the applicants in respect of the decision notices.

Premier Model Management Ltd v Bruce and others

Contract Damages for breach. The Queen's Bench Division held that a former employee, male model turned booker John Bruce, passed on confidential information to his own rival agency, PRM, whilst still employed by Premier Model Management Ltd, that being in breach of the restrictive covenants in his contract of employment.

*SC Gran Via Moinesti SRL v Agentia Nationala de Administrare Fiscala (ANAF) and another

European Union Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning arts167, 168 and 185(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The reference had been made in the course of proceedings concerning the value added tax (VAT) to which the taxpayer was subject on account of the acquisition of land and buildings constructed on that land for the purposes of carrying out a construction project.

Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd and other companies v ADT Fire and Security Ltd

Civil Procedure Practice. The Technology and Construction Court held that an interim payment should be made by ADT Fire and Security PLC (the defendant) in proceedings brought by the Trebor Basset Holdings, Cadbury UK Partnership and Kraft Foods and the defendant, on the basis that even if the claims were reduced to a minimum the claimants should be able to recover at least 4m.

Chauvidul-Aw v Phongphongsavat and another

Contract Breach. The claimant contended that she was entitled to a one-third share in a company by virtue of an agreement with the company's director and a third party. The director denied such agreement had been made. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claimant's various claims, found that the alleged agreement had not been made and no constructive trust for the one-third share had arisen.

Macdonald v Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Local Government Audit. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant local government elector's appeal under s17(4) of the as he had failed to show any reasonable basis on which it could have been said that the respondent auditor's decision had been unlawful.

R v Gilbert

Criminal Law Trial. The defendant was convicted, amongst other things, of fraud by false representation. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing her appeal against conviction, held that the causative link between the intention and the making of the false representation had not been properly addressed.

*R v YDG and another

Criminal Law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendants' appeal against the judge's ruling that it was not an abuse of process to continue proceedings in relation to money laundering offences charged on the basis that the money laundered was the proceeds derived by a third party from a conspiracy prior to 2001, and in respect of which a drug trafficking order had been made. There was nothing in the language of the which suggested that a certificate issued by the court as to the value of a defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking was a certificate which had effect against anyone other than the person in respect of whom it had been made.