The potential cost of making or defending a claim is often a concern for anyone involved in litigation or arbitration. AG has since 2008 been at the forefront of sharing the risk with its clients, and the litigation funding market has responded with a variety of different options and opportunities. And it's also a developing topic for the courts. Our Control Update newsletter reports all the latest developments, both commercial and legal.
Litigation funders – extent of their involvement and liability for costs
If you would prefer not to receive this service from Addleshaw Goddard, please email: [email protected] TRUSTEE QUARTERLY UPDATE Pensions 1 December 2016 Court holds Bankrupt cannot be forced to draw scheme benefits to pay creditors In its judgment in Horton v Henry the Court of Appeal has held that where a bankrupt member has a right to draw benefits, but has not yet chosen to do so (a) his rights to future benefits under the scheme are not "
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.
Facts
Angove’s PTY Ltd (‘Angove’s’) is an Australian winemaker which for many years had employed D&D Wines International Ltd (‘D&D’) to distribute its products to retailers. In addition, D&D also purchased wine for itself direct from Angove’s. Their business relationship was governed by an Agency and Distribution Agreement (‘ADA’) entered in December 2011. Amongst its provisions, the ADA entitled the parties to terminate the agreement with immediate effect upon either becoming insolvent.
Facts
Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment.
Facts
This case related to the leasehold ownership of hotel rooms. The applicants were the leaseholders of the hotel rooms and the respondent companies the lessors.
Facts
C’s appeal of his bankruptcy order failed. He then argued that pursuant to r 12.2(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (‘IR 12.2’) as a matter of law the costs of the unsuccessful appeal should be treated as an expense of the bankruptcy estate; alternatively they were aprovable debt in the bankruptcy. D (the PC) contended that IR 7.51A gave the court an unfettered discretion as to the form of order and sought costs against C personally as a post-bankruptcy liability.
The English courts have been careful to control the circumstances in which a constructive trust will be declared.
Introduction
This article was first published in Practical Law.
With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.