Judgment call: 16th January 2012
16 January 2012
2 December 2013
6 November 2013
11 March 2013
17 October 2013
10 April 2013
Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG & Ors; and Brit UW Ltd v Starlight; and Brit UW & Ors vImperial (2011) EWHC 3381. | Commercial Court Queen’s Bench Division. Burton J.
19 December 2011
The terms of a settlement agreement embodied in a Tomlin order could be enforced by way of summary relief without lifting the stay in the order and without the need to issue fresh proceedings.
Applications granted in part, cross-applications refused
For claimant Starlight Shipping Company
7KBW’s James Drake QC and Emma Hilliard; Lax & Co partner Tom Crampton
For defendants Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG; Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc; Assicurazioni Generali SPA; Rembrandt Insurance Co
Brick Court Chambers’ Michael Swainston QC and Tony Singla; Clyde & Co partner Angela Haylett
For defendants Brit UW Ltd (sued on its own behalf and on behalf of all underwriting members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2987 for the 2006 year of account); Nicholas Burkinshaw (sued on his own behalf and on behalf of all underwriting members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 2003 for the 2006 year of account); Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Ltd (sued on
its own behalf and on behalf of all underwriting members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 0033 for the 2006 year of account)
Stone Chambers’ Steven Gee QC and Tom Whitehead; Norton Rose partner Chris Zavos
For intended defendants Hill Dickinson; Hill Dickinson International; Michael Mallen; Alexandra Tytheridge; Maria Moisidou
7KBW’s David Bailey QC and Jocelin Gale; Mayer Brown partner Will Glassey
A third-party assessment of costs under the Solicitors Act 1974 s.71 was of limited use to a third party, since it only allowed the costs judge to eliminate items that ought not to be laid at the door of the third party at all because they were outside the scope of its liability, and items that were only allowable as between client and solicitor on a special arrangement basis within the terms of Civil Procedure Rules r.48.8(2)(c). Where there was a dispute between mortgager and mortgagee as to what was owed by the one to the other, including legal costs, the proceedings should be conventional proceedings for an account of what was due under the mortgage.
For appellant Tim Martin Interiors
Thomas More Chambers’ Geoffrey Cox QC, Faisal Saifee; Candey partner Andrew Dunn
For respondent Akin Gump
4 New Square’s Nicholas Bacon QC instructed directly
20 December 2011
The provision of a payment-handling service to dentists
was covered by the term ‘debt collection’ and was thus excluded from the exemption from VAT in Directive 77/388 art.13B(d)(3) and the Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.9 Pt II Group 5 item 1.
For respondent Axa UK
11 New Square’s Jonathan Peacock QC; Forbes Hall partner Peter Drinkwater
For appellant Revenue and Customs Commissioners
Monckton Chambers’ Raymond Hill instructed directly
Administration of justice
Save in exceptional circumstances, an appeal that was academic as between the parties would not be allowed to proceed unless: the court was satisfied that it would raise a point of general public importance; the respondent agreed to it procee-ding or was at least completely indemnified on costs and was not otherwise inappropriately prejud-iced; and the court was satisfied that both sides of the argument would be ventilated properly.
For appellant Hutcheson
Matrix Chambers’ Hugh Tomlinson QC; Schillings partner Gideon Benaim
For additional party NGN
5RB’s Adrienne Page QC; Farrer
& Co partner Mike Patrick
Lictor Anstalt (a company registered in Liechtenstein) v Mir Steel UK Ltd; Libala Ltd (registered in Cyprus); Christopher Morris; Mark Fry; David Hudson and AlphasteelLtd (2011) EWHC 3310. Chancery Division. David Richards J. 13 December 2011
There was considerable force in submissions made during a summary judgment application that the defence of justification should be extended to circum-stances where administrators of a company in administration sold assets in breach of contract while discharging statutory functions. It was an entirely new point on which there was little reference and no authority. It would therefore be inappropriate to determine it summarily and without any accompanying findings of fact.
For claimant Lictor Anstalt
Serle Court’s Alan Boyle QC and Thomas Braithwaite; Fox Williams partner Gavin Fogg
For proposed part 20 claimant/ defendant Mir Steel UK
2 Temple Gardens’ Paul Downes QC and Stewart Chirnside; Clyde & Co partner Michael Swangard
For proposed part 20 defendent Alphasteel
South Square’s Lloyd Tamlyn; Withers partner Jeremy Scott
A construction contract was in writing within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s.107 since it had been recorded in a letter and accepted by the parties’ subsequent conduct. Furthermore, an adjudicator had been validly appointed by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and therefore his decision was enforceable.
Judgment for claimant
For claimant Sprunt
3PB’s James Davison; Blake Lapthorn partner Hamish Gray
For defendant London Borough of Camden
Keating Chambers’ Justin Mort instructed directly