Securities and Investments Board v Radhe Sham Uberoi and Anil Uperoi (1995).
Ch.D (Millett J).
Summary: Action by the Securities and Investments Board against unauthorised dealers in investments.
Application by The Securities and Investments Board for summary judgment under RSC O.14 against the defendants for carrying on investment business in the UK in contravention of s.3 Financial Services Act 1986 and against the second defendant in respect of false or deceptive statements made in contravention of s.47 of the Act. The board claimed injunctive relief against both defendants and the payment of substantial sums of money into court for repayment to investors so as to restore them to their former positions prior to the offending transactions. Held: In 1989 the second defendant arranged for 95 applications for shares in the water privatisation on behalf of 21 families, each application being for 2,100 shares, for £228,000. The shares were sold realising £462,778. In 1990 the second defendant made 638 applications through brokers for shares in regional electricity companies for the investment of £952,000. The shares were allotted and sold and the balance together with the amount realised on the water shares were deposited in a special reserve account at Isleworth National Westminster Bank in the second defendant's name. The same procedure was followed with Nationalpower and Powergen followed by the deposit of £309,000. The defendants also persuaded others to remortgage their homes and allow the defendants to invest the proceeds on their behalf. The losses have been summarised as £116,658 from April 1990 to December 1991 plus interest of approximately £26,000 plus the board's legal costs of £73,000 and investigation costs of £36,000. The defendants had no authority under the 1986 Act to carry on any investment business. Defendants ordered to pay £260,000 into court out of the money in the National Westminster Bank special reserve account and on paying in, the Mareva injunctions against the defendants would be discharged. Investors to produce payment schedules to obtain repayment from the court. Costs to be taxed and sums covering those costs to stay in court in the meantime.
LTL 26/9/9Apologising for one libel while libeling another
Apologising for one libel while libeling another
Watts v Times Newspapers & ors (1995).
CA (Hirst LJ, Henry LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson) 28/7/95.
Summary: Libel within an apology for a libel and the availability of the defence of qualified privilege in the circumstances of the case.
Appeals by the first defendant against a preliminary ruling that it could not rely on qualified privilege as a defence to an alleged libel of a third party contained in an apology which the newspaper had published at the direction of the plaintiff's solicitors whose client had alleged libel in the main action and by the solicitors as third parties against dismissal of their application to strike out the third party notice filed by the third party.