Secured creditors are not left out in the cold

In the recent case of Kevin Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd and others, the High Court decided that the exercise of existing rights by a secured creditor should not be regarded as a disposal by a defendant, and as a result, enforcement by a secured creditor is not an infringement of a freezing order.  The High Court also clarified that it is not necessary for a secured creditor to bring an application for variation of the freezing order.
MORE >

Basis clause or exclusion clause… When must a non-reliance clause be reasonable?

In First Tower Trustees Limited and another v CDS (Superstores International) Limited (2017), the Landlords were ordered to pay the costs of asbestos remedial works plus the costs of alternative warehousing accommodation.  The court found that they had misrepresented to a prospective tenant, in Replies to Enquiries, the presence of asbestos at the properties. The court held that the non-reliance clause in the lease was in fact an exclusion clause and was not reasonable.
MORE >

How much commission do you Pickup?

In Commercial First Business Limited v Pickup and Vernon (2016), the Court considered whether a broker introducing a borrower to a lender owed a fiduciary duty to the borrower and whether it was required to disclose the amount of commission received, as well as the fact of commission.  Distinguishing Hurstanger v Wilson (2007), the Judge found that the broker in this case did not owe the borrower a fiduciary duty, and did not need to disclose the amount of the commission.
MORE >

FCA regulatory enforcement round-up

We highlight some of the key regulatory decisions over the last few months.  
MORE >

'Information duty' imposed on a bank in the context of fixed rate products

In Thomas and another v Triodos Bank NV (2017) the High Court has again considered the controversial imposition of an intermediate duty of care on a bank providing information to a retail customer on a product related to their commercial borrowing facilities; concluding that in such a case the bank owes a duty going beyond the duty to take reasonable care not to misrepresent but less demanding than the duty of care when advising on the purchase of a product.
MORE >