A break fee in an agreement for the reverse takeover of a company listed on AIM constituted financial assistance contrary to the Companies Act 1985 s.151, but ceased to be unlawful after the agreement was varied to provide for an acquisition of assets rather than shares.
For the claimant Paros
Blackstone Chambers’ Tom Richards; Jackson Parton solicitor Alex Askew
For the defendant Worldlink Group
Erskine Chambers’ Alex Barden; Osmond & Osmond partner William Osmond
W (Algeria) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department; PP (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Z (Algeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department.  UKSC 8. Supreme Court. Lord Phillips (President); Lord Brown JSC; Lord Wilson JSC; Lord Dyson JSC; Lord Kerr JSC.
7 March 2012
When considering the deportation of a foreign national on the grounds of national security, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission could give an absolute and irrevocable guarantee of total confidentiality to a witness who was prepared to testify that the deportee was likely to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return despite contrary assurances from the authorities in the country of return. However, the Appeals Commission was to use its power to give such guarantees most sparingly.
For the appellant Algerian nationals
Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Fordham QC; Garden Court Chambers’ Stephanie Harrison; Luqmani Thompson & Partners partner Rakesh Singh; Birnberg Peirce & Partners solicitors Ronnie Graham and Sarah Kellas; Tyndallwoods partner Natalia Garcia
For the respondent Secretary of State
Temple Garden Chambers’ Robin Tam QC; Monckton Chambers’ Robert Palmer; instructed directly by the Treasury Solicitors
In considering an application for planning permission for change of use, it was permissible to accord a circular less weight where an announcement in relation to its future revocation had been made. Such an announcement had been made in respect of Circular 01/06 and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had not erred in giving it less weight than he would otherwise have done in upholding a local authority’s decision to refuse planning permission for a change from agricultural use to use as a private caravan site.
For the claimant Smith
Garden Court Chambers’ Marc Willers; Davies Gore Lomax solicitor Keith Coughtrie
For the first defendant Secretary of State
Francis Taylor Building’s Hereward Phillpot; instructed directly by the Treasury Solicitors
The Court of Appeal refused to overturn a judge’s decision not to grant relief from sanctions under Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, indicating that it was vital that the Court of Appeal should support first instance judges who made robust but fair
Appeal allowed in part
For the appellant Brands Plaza
Hardwicke’s Mark Engelman; Bedlington Chambers’ Paul Considine; ABGM partner Sean McCarthy
For the respondent Fred Perry
11 South Square’s Anna Edwards-Stuart; Clarke Willmott partner Roy Crozier
Where a contract was terminated by one party on the basis of alleged repudiatory breach by the other which turned out not to exist, the termination could be retrospectively justified where the terminating party subsequently discovered that another distinct breach of the contract had occurred, even though it did not rely on that breach at the time of termination. It could not, however, claim damages for
non-performance of the contract after the date on which it came to an end.
Judgment for defendant in the first action; judgment for the claimant in the second action
For the claimants in the first action and the defendants in the second action
8 New Square’s John Baldwin QC and Andrew Lykiardopoulos; Edwin Coe partner Simon Miles
For the defendants in the first action and the claimants in the second action Brick Court Chambers’ George Leggatt QC and Jasbir Dhillon; RPC partner Jeremy Drew
For the first third party Punch GmbH, the fourth third party PSF International BV and the fifth third party Geurt Jan Schotsman 11 South Square’s Richard
Hacon; Druces partner Mary-Louise King
Where an employee had been dismissed before completion of the sale of his employer’s business, there was nevertheless an effective transfer of his contract of employment under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 reg.3(1)(a) because the new employer was in control of the business at the time of transfer.
For the appellant Commercial Motors (Wales)
Over Taylor Biggs solicitor-advocate Chris Over
For the respondent Howley
No5 Chambers’ Anthony Korn; FWD Law solicitor Sarah Alford