Category: Case Study

Only with court permission under CPR 36.10. You must prove a "change of circumstances" (e.g., new evidence), not just a change of mind. See our litigation guide.

Chinda v Cardiff: Rules on Withdrawing Accepted Part 36 Offers

Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.

Stylised digital illustration showing a blockchain network connecting to the Royal Courts of Justice silhouette, symbolising the intersection of cryptocurrency technology and English fiduciary law.

Court of Appeal: Blockchain Developers Owe Fiduciary Duties to Crypto Owners (Cryptocurrency Litigation)

In Tulip Trading Ltd v van der Laan & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83, the Court of Appeal held that software developers maintaining Bitcoin networks may arguably owe fiduciary duties to crypto owners, recognising a serious issue to be tried on whether developers’ control over blockchain code gives rise to duties of loyalty and care towards asset holders.

Manolete Case Study: Court Confirms Misfeasance Claims Procedure (Hybrid Insolvency Applications)

The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.

Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP High Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim

Manolete Case Study: Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim (Breach of Undertaking)

The High Court refused Sampson Coward LLP’s application for summary judgment in Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP [2023] EWHC 37 (Ch), allowing a £2 million claim concerning alleged mismanagement of escrow accounts during UK Property and Land Specialists Ltd’s insolvency to proceed. The ruling highlights the complexity of fiduciary breaches in escrow arrangements and confirms assignees’ rights to pursue breach of undertaking claims under the Insolvency Act 1986.

The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of Hastings Insurance Services Ltd, allowing VAT recovery for services to a Gibraltar-based insurer. Learn what this judgment means for cross-border VAT claims.

Landmark Tax Tribunal Win for VAT Recovery Rights: Hastings Insurance Services v HMRC

The Tribunal in Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC confirmed that UK intermediaries can recover VAT on services provided to overseas insurers. This decision challenges HMRC’s interpretation of VAT law and sets a strong precedent for cross-border transactions.