Below are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Topics covered this week included a number of civil procedure issues (civil contempt, appeal routes, administrative dismissals for delay), of couple of real property/municipal law cases (dedication of roads, relief from forfeiture) and an unjust enrichment case in the context of a family dispute.

We always welcome your comments and feedback. Please feel free to share this blog with others.

Have a nice weekend.

Hello,

If you are served with a demand letter from your lender, you don’t have to fold up your tent and give in. If, like most companies, you feel that if you had more time, you could improve the situation (to the benefit of the Bank and the company), there are options. Here are 5 things that you can consider which will make it more likely that the Bank will either agree, or be forced to agree, to give you some more time to come up with a better solution.

Good afternoon,

Here are this week’s Court of Appeal Summaries. Civil topics covered included MVA, SABs, family law, vexatious litigants, employment law, simplified procedure and another chapter in the Indian Residential Schools settlement.The RJM56 Investments Inc v Kurnik decision highlights the importance of litigators not treating the tax implications of a settlement as an afterthought and of obtaining tax advice before completing a settlement.

Have a great weekend!

John Polyzogopoulos

Blaney McMurtry LLP

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.

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.