Contract Breach. The Chancery Division of the High Court considered a claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation by a former fund manager, alleging that under a bonus remuneration package he had been entitled to additional bonuses for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. The Court held that the evidence did not support the claimant's case, and hence dismissed his claim.
Child Maintenance. On an appeal against the assessment of child maintenance due from a non-resident father, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been no error in the decision maker having relied on his own evaluation of the father's actual profits from self-employment rather than the figures he had submitted to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Where the decision maker had increased the profit above the level accepted by the Revenue, then there had to be a deduction to account for tax on the notional surplus.
Stamp duty land tax Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in dismissing the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against an earlier decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), held, inter alia, that a sub-sale of a head leasehold interest by a company to a partnership (of which the company owned 98%) was subject to stamp duty land tax liability of nil.
Insolvency Petition. The Chancery Division held that the fees of the applicant solicitors had not qualified, nor were they to have been 'treated' as qualifying, as an expense of the administration of the relevant company under r2.67 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, and the court did not have power under s51 of the to make an order which would have directly or indirectly produced that result. However, its fees were expenses in the liquidation of the company in accordance with r4.218(3)(h) of the 1986 Rules.
Contract Construction. Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) sought the court's directions as to the interpretation, characterisation, validity and effect of security provisions in two agreements. The principal issues were whether security interests created under the agreements had constituted a floating charge and, if so, the implications of that fact. The Companies Court found that the security interest was properly characterised as a floating charge.
Solicitor Disciplinary proceedings. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant solicitor's appeal against the respondent Solicitors Regulation Authority's solicitors disciplinary tribunal's decision to indefinitely suspend him, as the findings of fact made by the tribunal had been amply justified on the material before it. However, as he had not been put on notice that he was at risk of a costs order before such an order was made against him, the issue of costs would be remitted.
Company Administration order. The proceedings concerned the administration of a bank that was insolvent. A Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) had been made regarding the bank. The issue arose as to whether the appointment of the administrators constituted an immediate and complete event of default under the GMRA, without the need of a service of notice declaring it an event of default. The Companies Court of the Chancery Division held that the appointment of liquidators did not constitute an event of default under the GMRA.
Harbour Harbour authority. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant's refusal to grant a Harbour Revision Order seeking to transfer ownership of part of Port of Immingham to the claimant would be refused on the basis that the defendant had no power to make the revision order sought.
Income tax Emoluments. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) held that an employees remuneration trust created for the benefit of the executives of the Murray Group and the footballers of Rangers Football Club which was owned by the Murray Group, were valid and subsisting and that sums advanced to the employees of the group, by way of loans had been made in pursuance of discretionary powers and remained recoverable and represented debts on their estates. Accordingly, the appeal against the disputed assessments would be allowed.
Contracts Formation. The Chancery Division held that the claimant company had failed to establish a cause of action against the second defendant for breach of a joint venture agreement in respect of two property developments. However, the court held, in respect of the first defendant company which had failed to follow through with the development of a site (the property), that a Pallant v Morgan trust arose and, accordingly, the court awarded the claimant 40% of the agreed actual net profit made by the first defendant on the re-sale of the property. Where property had been acquired for the joint benefit of A and B, there was no requirement, in respect of a Pallant v Morgan trust, that there had to be agreement or understanding that B would acquire a specific proprietorial interest.