ICICI Bank UK plc v Mehta and others

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court considered whether freezing orders against two of the defendants should be continued, in a case concerning the liquidation of a company that formed part of a family diamond business. It held that the claimant bank had no good arguable case against the third defendant, and so the order against her would be discharged. However, it held that there was a good arguable case against the first defendant, and a real risk that he would dissipate his assets. The freezing order against him would continue.

Attorney General v Dumas (Trinidad and Tobago)

High Court has jurisdiction to hear application by citizen to interpret provision of Constitution . The Privy Council advised that the respondent's claim under the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago would have had standing if he had presented an application for judicial review. Nonetheless, it would have remained within the power of the trial judge, in the exercise of case management powers, to convert the respondent's application into one for judicial review.

Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (a firm) v Armes

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appellant solicitors' firms' application to disallow an amendment under CPR 19.5 and of the Limitation Act 1980 should have been allowed, as the respondent had sought to add the firm outside the limitation period in circumstances which had not been sanctioned by the 1980 Act and the CPR.

Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd

Disclosure Pre-action disclosure. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the applicant company's application for pre-action disclosure, under CPR 31,16. The applicant sought disclosure, from an insurer, of the full insurance policy in relation to a company, against which, the applicant sought to claim for damage to its warehouse, which had been caused by a fire. The court held that Sch1 to the demonstrated that Parliament could not have envisaged that CPR 31.16 would or would commonly be used to obtain insurance policies from the insurers of insolvent insureds, and that the circumstances of the present case were not sufficiently exceptional for the court to order disclosure of a solvent insured's insurance policy, contrary to established practice.

Housemaker Services Ltd and another v Cole and another

Company Claim. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendants' application for a non-party costs order to be made against the second claimant former director of the first claimant company, who had been joined to the proceedings for the purpose of seeking costs against him. The court held that, in order to make it just to order a director to pay the costs of unsuccessful company litigation, it was necessary to show something more, for example, that the claim had not been made in good faith, or for the benefit of the company, or it might be that the claim had been improperly conducted by the director. The mere fact that a director, who controlled the company's litigation, also funded the claim was not enough, in the ordinary case, to justify a non-party costs order against him if the company's case failed. The court held that the second claimant's behaviour in controlling, funding and, ultimately, hoping to benefit from the claim being made by the company had not gone beyond the ordinary case of the director and shareholder of a company pursuing a legal claim.

AMT Futures Ltd v Gloeggler

Practice Summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant company's application for summary judgment against the defendant, who had carried out trading for it, where the defendant had confirmed that he would neither file evidence in the application, nor actively contest its merits, but that he was not content to consent to the judgment sought, or to any judgment.

Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation); Cherkasov and others v Nogotkov (Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation))

Costs Security for costs. The Chancery Division granted an application by the former general managers of a Russian company for security of costs from the respondent liquidator of the company, in respect of a hearing due to take place in November 2017 to consider their application to set aside a recognition order and to consider the liquidator's application to summon them to court for questioning, under s236 of the . The court held that it had jurisdiction to order security for costs against the respondent in respect of the November hearing because the application, previously brought by the respondent for the recognition order, under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, , was properly described as 'a proceeding', within the meaning of CPR 25.12, and the applicants' application to set aside that order, which was to be heard at the November hearing, was part and parcel of the proceeding or claim that had been commenced by the respondent for the recognition order. An order for security for costs was granted in the sum of 1m.

Archer and another v Fabian Investments Ltd and others (Bahamas)

Company Shares. The Privy Council ruled that an appeal by a former shareholder of a Bahamian company (Petroleum) should be dismissed, with the qualification that a declaration stating that the first defendant company was the beneficial and legal owner of shares in Petroleum.

Thefaut v Johnston

Medical practitioner Negligence. The Queens Bench Division, in a claim of medical negligence following an operation on the claimant's spine, held that the defendant surgeon had been in breach of duty in the advice given prior to the surgery taking place. There was, however, no evidence of causation or negligence in respect of the outcome of the operation.

Balk v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd and others

Damages Deductions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that given that the appellant wife had exceeded the scope of the permission granted in her submissions, her appeal had to be dismissed. In any event the wife had unreasonably refused an offer letter by the claimants which had been a clear attempt to dispose of the appeal, save costs and avoid a waste of the court's time.