First ever search order against a third party granted: the Chabra moment for search orders

Trevor Mascarenhas and Jon Felce of PCB Litigation LLP consider Abela and others v Baadarani (Third Party: Fakih) [2017] EWHC 269 (Ch), where a search order was granted against a third party.

Notification Injunction: Belgravia, Boats and Bootstraps

Jane Colston and Roger Kennell of Brown Rudnick LLP consider Holyoake v Candy [2016] EWHC 970 (Ch) in which the Chancery Division granted a “notification injunction” requiring subsequent disclosure of the disposal of property assets rather than a full freezing order preventing their disposal in the first place. The decision raises interesting questions about what must be shown by a claimant to get such an injunction, whether risk of dissipation should be proven to a lower standard for the lesser remedy, and whether fortification of the undertaking in damages by the claimant is required.

A big step forwards for backwards tracing

Alan Sheeley and Craig Connal QC of Pinsent Masons LLP review a recent Privy Council ruling that relaxes the restrictions on recovering fraudulent payments through backwards tracing. This article was first published in the Trust Quarterly Review, Volume 13, Issue 4 2015.

Fraud and Related Bars to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Clive Freedman QC of 7 King’s Bench Walk examines various bars to the enforcement or recognition of judgments based upon fraud, public policy, breaches of natural justice, and judgments amounting to penalties.

Fraudulent Directors and the Impact on Companies: Victims or Wrongdoers?

Alan Sheeley and Mehmet Karagoz of Pinsent Masons LLP analyse the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Jetivia SA and another v. Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and Others [2015] UKSC 23, in which it was decided that a company can pursue a claim against its directors for a breach of duty and that it will not be prevented from doing so by the illegality defence on the basis that the knowledge of the directors is not attributed to the company.

Does Lord Make a Difference?

Anthony Edwards and Matthew Hardcastle of TV Edwards consider the practical impact of the judgment in R (Lord) v SFO [2015] EWHC 865 (Admin), which concerned the legality of the Serious Fraud Office’s decision to deny the attendance of a specific firm of solicitors to a compulsory interview held under s. 2 Criminal Justice Act 1987 in circumstances where the interviewees chose to be represented by the same firm of solicitors acting for their corporate employer.

Interviews Under Caution

Anthony Edwards and Matthew Hardcastle of TV Edwards examine the impact of developments in the Codes of Practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on interviews under caution, pre-interview disclosure of information, search warrants and adverse inference/pre-interview disclosure.

Keeping a Cool Head

Jane Colston of Stewarts Law considers the position of a defendant faced with a freezing injunction and the need to keep a ‘cool-headed’ approach.

Search and seizure orders, and the key role of supervising solicitors

Jane Colston and Andrew Hill of Stewarts Law examine the process of obtaining a search and seizure order and the duties and obligations of the supervising solicitor.

We welcome all contributions, short or long, in relation to recent developments in commercial fraud and any other topics that may be of interest to members.

If you would like to submit an article, please email Charles Thomson.

Next event

SEE ALL
Mon, 2 Dec 2019 @ 5:45 pm - 8:30 pm

Singularis: When the Bank Must Say No!

In Singularis Holdings v Daiwa Capital Markets the Supreme Court recently considered the application of the Quincecare duty, and the circumstances in which the acts of a rogue actor will be attributed to a company. In the ordinary course of events a bank is required to honour its customer’s instructions and will be liable for […]