Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of January 15, 2024.
HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2023
Welcome to the second annual Disputes Digest, in which we collate our 2023 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place.
This edition includes updates from across our Disputes arena, including England and Wales, BVI, AsiaPac, and the Middle East.
On 26 September 2023, our Insolvency and Asset Recovery team hosted a seminar explaining the emerging and developing types of disputes focussed on insolvent estate recoveries.
Introduction
What happens when monies are loaned for a specific purpose but that purpose fails? Should those monies fall within the general assets of the recipient upon bankruptcy or insolvency?
Summer 2024 Editor: Melanie Willems IN THIS ISSUE “Seething on a jet plane” - conditions precedent and time of the essence in commercial contracts by Jack Spence 03 09 11 24 Diamonds aren’t forever: who is vicariously responsible when they have been stolen?
"Comity" is a principle of jurisprudence whereby, under appropriate circumstances, one country recognizes within its borders the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation. Many recent court rulings have examined the indispensable role of comity in the context of foreign bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings that have been "recognized" by U.S. courts during the two decades since the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, U.S.
Several relics of the 2008-2010 financial crisis have returned to the commercial real estate sector as distress in the market picks up and lenders and borrowers look for solutions to loans that are in or near default.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court (SC) handed down judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2023] UKSC 25. In summary, the SC found that banks do not owe a duty to refrain from executing customers’ direct payment instructions where there may be an attempt to defraud the customer.
It's out! The Supreme Court has handed down its keenly awaited judgment on whether banks owe a Quincecare duty not to carry out a customer's instructions in cases of suspected fraud.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.