Dockets

Sources in this library

Latest documents

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2024/0015

    Issues:FactsFacts:Judgment appealed [2024] EWCA Civ 64

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2023/0080

    Issues:Did the Court of Appeal correctly interpret section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by determining that: (1) a person can 'enter into' a transaction where they act on behalf of a company; and (2) there can be a 'transaction' for the purposes of section 423 where the asset which is alleged to have been disposed of at an undervalue was not beneficially owned by the 'debtor'?Facts:The Respondent, Invest Bank PSC ("the Bank"), is a public shareholding company established in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). The Bank claims that it is a creditor of Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini ("Ahmad") pursuant to two alleged guarantees given by Ahmad in connection with credit facilities granted to two UAE companies. The Appellants, Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny and Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny, are two of Ahmad's sons. The Bank obtained judgments in Abu Dhabi against Ahmad amounting to roughly £20 million. The Bank issued proceedings in the Commercial Court seeking, amongst other things, relief under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Section 423 provides that in certain circumstances a court can provide relief where a person has entered into a transaction at an undervalue. The Bank alleged that Ahmad had transferred various assets at an undervalue, including transferring valuable London properties and shares to, amongst others, the Appellants. The Bank's case proceeded on the basis that Ahmad was not the beneficial owner of the transferred assets at the moment of transfer. The Bank alleged that the companies which beneficially owned and transferred the assets were ultimately owned and controlled by Ahmad. Ahmad and the Appellants applied to set aside service of the Bank's claim on them on the basis that, amongst other things, the section 423 claims did not raise a serious issue to be tried. The Commercial Court determined that the Bank had failed to plead a case raising a serious issue to be tried on the section 423 claims in respect of certain of the asset transfers. The Court also partially granted the Bank's application for permission to amend its Particulars of Claim. Both the Bank and the Appellants appealed against the Commercial Court's order. The Court of Appeal allowed the Bank's appeal and dismissed the Appellant's appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2023/0053

    Issues:Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?Facts:Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, the respondents in the first appeal, are the parents of Zainab who was six years old when she died on 16 September 2019. Lanre Haastrup and Takesha Thomas, the respondents in the second appeal, are the parents of Isaiah who died on 7 March 2018. Zainab and Isaiah were in the care of the respective appellants. Indefinite RROs were made in both cases. RROs protect the identities of those involved in the care of a patient in respect of whom an application to withdraw treatment is made. In Zainab's case, they cannot name the small cohort of medical professionals protected by the RRO or give away information that would enable them to be identified (the "Abbasi RRO"). In Isaiah's case, the range of medical staff protected is wider (the "Haastrup RRO"). The parents appealed against the orders made by the President of the Family Division, which allowed the continuation of the RROs, on the basis that they now have the effect of preventing the parents meaningfully discussing or writing publicly about the circumstances in which their respective children were treated and died, or mainstream media from doing so if the parents were to spark interest in the circumstances of the cases. The continuation of the RROs involved a balancing exercise between the competing article 8 rights (which concern the right to privacy) of the hospital staff and the article 10 rights (which concern the right to freedom of expression) of the parents. The Court of Appeal discharged the RROs, with that order stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2023/0052

    Issues:Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?Facts:Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, the respondents in the first appeal, are the parents of Zainab who was six years old when she died on 16 September 2019. Lanre Haastrup and Takesha Thomas, the respondents in the second appeal, are the parents of Isaiah who died on 7 March 2018. Zainab and Isaiah were in the care of the respective appellants. Indefinite RROs were made in both cases. RROs protect the identities of those involved in the care of a patient in respect of whom an application to withdraw treatment is made. In Zainab's case, they cannot name the small cohort of medical professionals protected by the RRO or give away information that would enable them to be identified (the "Abbasi RRO"). In Isaiah's case, the range of medical staff protected is wider (the "Haastrup RRO"). The parents appealed against the orders made by the President of the Family Division, which allowed the continuation of the RROs, on the basis that they now have the effect of preventing the parents meaningfully discussing or writing publicly about the circumstances in which their respective children were treated and died, or mainstream media from doing so if the parents were to spark interest in the circumstances of the cases. The continuation of the RROs involved a balancing exercise between the competing article 8 rights (which concern the right to privacy) of the hospital staff and the article 10 rights (which concern the right to freedom of expression) of the parents. The Court of Appeal discharged the RROs, with that order stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2022/0180

    Issues:Did the Court of Appeal err in: holding that rectification is not available for a collective agreement which is not intended to be a legally enforceable contract; refusing to allow the claim to be amended; holding that an employment tribunal has power to reject a complaint on the grounds of rectification; holding that it would be an abuse of process to raise rectification in respect of past complaints and/or that a claim for rectification was estopped; and its holding on privity of interest. Facts:Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, the Appellant, trades as Nexus. It operates the Tyne and Wear Metro (the "Metro"). The Respondents are National Union Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (the "RMT") and Unite the Union ("Unite") (together the "Unions"). These proceedings are a sequel to an earlier claim brought against Nexus by a group of employees (the "Anderson proceedings"). The background to the Anderson proceedings was that a collective agreement had been reached between the Unions and Nexus. In the letter of agreement (the "Letter Agreement") Nexus agreed to consolidate a pre-existing entitlement referred to (inaccurately) as a "productivity bonus" into the basic pay of the employees. In the Anderson proceedings the employees successfully argued that on the proper construction of the Letter Agreement their shift allowances were supposed to be calculated as a percentage uplift of their basic salary including the productivity bonus (the "enhanced basis"). As Nexus had been calculating shift allowances on an unenhanced basis, the employees' shift allowances had been underpaid. As a result of the Anderson proceedings, Nexus brought a claim to rectify the Letter Agreement for common mistake or alternatively unilateral mistake. A trial was held to determine preliminary matters. The Unions argued Nexus is estopped from pursuing its rectification claim since Nexus did not advance the mistake case in the Anderson proceedings. In support of the Unions' application for strike out or alternatively summary judgment, the Unions argued that the rectification claim was an abuse of process, barred by delay, and that the court had no power to rectify the Letter Agreement as it was a collective agreement which was not legally binding or enforceable. The High Court rejected the Unions' arguments and dismissed the strike-out and summary judgment applications. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Unions. Nexus now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2022/0133

    Issues:Was the CA wrong to find that Tesco was entitled to terminate certain employment contracts which included an entitlement to "Retained Pay", described as "permanent", and offer re-engagement on terms without Retained Pay (the so-called "fire and re-hire" mechanism)?Facts:In 2007, Tesco Stores Limited ("Tesco") planned to open new distribution centres and close others. To retain staff, it offered a significant enhancement to the pay of staff willing to relocate from its Lichfield centre to its Daventry centre. This pay is referred to as "Retained Pay". By incorporation of a collective agreement, the Retained Pay was described as "permanent" and, by the terms of the agreements, was stated as only changeable by mutual consent. In January 2021, Tesco wished to bring Retained Pay to an end. It therefore gave notice to the relevant staff that it intended to seek their agreement to remove Retained Pay from their contracts in exchange for a payment. If an employee did not agree to this change, their employment contract would be terminated and they would be offered re-engagement on different terms ("fire and rehire"). The individual appellants are employees who have refused to give up their Retained Pay. They brought a claim in the High Court, seeking a declaration that their employment contracts granted an entitlement to Retained Pay, that they were subject to an implied term that Tesco could not terminate the contracts for the purposes of removing Retained Pay and an injunction preventing Tesco from terminating the contracts. The appellants were successful in the High Court, but the appeal was allowed in the Court of Appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Issues. Case ID: 2022/0124

    Issues:Was the majority of the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the collateral warranty in this case was a "construction contract" for the purposes of section 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996?Facts:Simply was engaged to carry out the construction of a care home under a building contract. In 2017, a long lease of the care home was granted to Abbey. In 2018, fire-safety defects were discovered in the care home. Another contractor rectified the defects. In 2020, the freeholder of the care home requested that Simply execute a collateral warranty in favour of Abbey. After initially refusing, Simply executed a collateral warranty, under which Simply warranted that it "has performed and will continue to perform diligently its obligations under the contract". The freeholder and Abbey both began adjudication proceedings in respect of the defects, and both were awarded sums against Simply by the adjudicator. The freeholder and Abbey both applied to the court for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's awards. As regards Abbey's application, Simply maintained that the collateral warranty delivered to Abbey was not a construction contract under s. 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and that, accordingly, the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction. The Judge agreed and dismissed Abbey's summary judgment application. Abbey successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and was granted summary judgment. Simply now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: CA-2024-000315. Yetunde v Odularu and another
  • Case: CA-2024-000302. Artesham v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
  • Case: CA-2024-000328. Connell and others v Burton Waters Moorings Limited

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT