Contract Construction. The Privy Council dismissed an appeal regarding the proper interpretation of a clawback agreement entered into between an investment management company and a company that provided it with investment advice. The judge had erred in his construction of the terms of the agreement as they related to the right of the plaintiff to exercise its rights of clawback against investments which it had retained out of discretionary fees payable to the defendant in respect of earlier years.
Local authority Land. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for an order to compel specific performance of a charge on property which the claimant had purchased. The defendant company had refused to execute a planning agreement under of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to further the development of the land. The court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim for specific performance of its obligations under the charge.
Contract Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to recover spread costs for a period of delay caused by the claimant's breach of contract. The language of the exclusion clause in the contract in LOGIC form was clear and was apt to exclude liability for wasted costs in the form of the spread costs which the defendant sought to recover.
Bankruptcy Appeal. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's appeal against a bankruptcy order. It held that, among other things, in making the order the deputy district judge had been right in finding that the respondent company had acted reasonably in rejecting the applicant's offer to secure the debt.
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed defendant sellers' appeal concerning the construction of a contractual time limit for the making of warranty claims, pursuant to a share purchase agreement. In preferring a narrower interpretation of the relevant clause, it upheld the judge's decision in favour of the claimant buyer that its claim did not fall foul of the time limit.
Practice Settlement. The Commercial Court held that the claimant company's application for summary judgment with regard to a threshold issue in its claim against the defendant solicitors' firm would be dismissed. The court held that the claim advanced by the claimant would be 'caught' by an earlier settlement agreement and the defendant was entitled to a declaration to that effect.
Shipping Charterparty. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant owner's appeal against a finding of the tribunal that the defendant charterers had been entitled to order a vessel hired from the owner to load further cargo. The court held that, on the true construction of the charter between the parties, the charterers had been entitled to order the vessel to load further cargo at a port in Oman.
Minor Custody. In a case under concerning an application by a mother under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 for the summary return of her children from the United Kingdom to Australia, the Family Division held that an agreement of the mother to allow the children to come and live in England with the father for a period of time had necessarily to have imported into it a quality of residence that in the circumstances of the present case, the retention of the children by the father in the jurisdiction beyond the agreed date could not be considered to have been a 'wrongful retention' for the purposes of engaging art 12 of the Hague Convention. On that basis alone, the mother's application for the summary return of the children to Australia would be dismissed.
Company Administration order. The Chancery Division made a ruling with regard to the solvency of he defendant company, Lehman Brothers UK Holdings Ltd, which was in administration. The court held that the solvency condition in the standard terms of three loan agreements would be satisfied in the case of the defendant. As a result, the claimant company was entitled to the relief that it claimed as a creditor of the defendant.
Contract Contract for service. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim regarding an alleged agreement between the parties by which the claimant was to provide services to the defendant. On the evidence, no legally binding contract had been made between the parties, either orally or in writing.