Akers & ors v Samba Financial Group [2014] EWCA Civ 1516

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2015 #151

The claimants appealed a decision to stay their claim on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The fourth claimant (C4) was a Cayman company and was massively insolvent, owing US$2.815bn plus interest to a syndicate of banks including the defendant (D). The first (C1), second (C2) and third claimant (C3) were the liquidators of C4. A winding up petition was presented to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands on 30 July 2009, commencing the winding up of C4. On 18 September 2009, the winding up order was made.

The claim was brought by C1, C2 and C3 pursuant to s127 of the I...

Libertarian Investments Ltd v Hall FACV Nos 14 & 16 of 2012

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2015 #147

W and the defendant embarked on a project with the aim of acquiring a substantial interest in an English company, TSE, which started with the acquisition of 125,000 TSE shares in 2002 (the first tranche). In 2003 they attempted to make additional acquisitions of TSE shares, such attempts involving three of W’s companies, including the plaintiff. The overall scheme was that funds would be provided by one company, Assanzon, for the acquisition of shares for another company, Momentum, which were held for its beneficial owners which were principally the plaintiff company, Libertarian. The fu...

FHR European Ventures LLP & ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2014 #142

The claimants engaged Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) to act as their agent in negotiating the purchase by FHR European Ventures LLP of the issued share capital of Monte Carlo Grand Hotel SAM (which owned a long leasehold interest in the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel) from Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd (vendor). As such an agent, Cedar owed a fiduciary duty to the claimants, notwithstanding which it entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement with the vendor to provide for the payment of a €10m fee following completion – the vendor was paid €211.5m when the purchase was completed on 2...

M v M & ors [2013] EWHC 2534 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2013 #135

The transcript of this judgment is reported in part from para 164 onwards and starts with a discussion of the law. No part of the report provides a factual narrative.

Held (allowing the wife’s claim for financial relief):

The court had power on divorce to order a party to the marriage to transfer to the other party such property as may be so specified to which that party was entitled, either in possession or reversion. In this case almost all the wealth created by the husband during the course of the marriage was held through offshore company structures and the ques...

FHR European Ventures & ors v Mankarious & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2013 #129

The claimants (Investor Group) appealed from the decision of Simon J ([2011] EWHC 2308 (Ch)) that the Investor Group was entitled to a personal, but not a proprietary, remedy against Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar). There was no appeal from Simon J’s decision that Cedar was liable to account in equity to the Investor Group.

Monte Carlo Grand Hotel in Monaco was owned by Monte Carlo Hotel SAM, a Monegasque company. The company’s share capital was owned by Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd, a BVI company. In September 2004, the BVI company was interested in selling the hotel, either by...

Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 195

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2012 #122

Anthony Morris (Mr Morris) orchestrated a series of frauds between August 2007 and April 2008 by which £52m was misappropriated from various occupational pension schemes by their trustees, GP Noble Trustees Ltd and BDC Trustees Ltd. The appellant was Independent Trustee Services Ltd (ITS), which had been appointed as trustee of the 1653 pension schemes by the Pensions Regulator in July 2008. Mr Morris was found liable in dishonest assistance for £52m and in knowing receipt for £4.89m by Peter Smith J in July 2010 ([2010] EWHC 1653 (Ch)) (the chancery action).

Mr Morris had married...

Court Orders: Revoking the rule

Setting aside court orders concerning payment from one party to another can be risky, as David de Ferrars explains ‘Mrs Morris’ counsel sought to argue that the receipt of the £1.481m by Mrs Morris as a purchaser for value without notice continued to govern her title to those monies, notwithstanding the subsequent rescission of the …
This post is only available to members.