LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Legally binding contracts in UK contract law can be made via WhatsApp, email, & text messages. The Jaevee Homes v Fincham High Court ruling confirms digital agreements require offer, acceptance, consideration, & intention (based on an objective test). Understand contract formation via electronic communication & risks of informal digital contracts in English law.
We successfully annulled a bankruptcy order against our client after HMRC failed to properly serve notice of a key hearing. Mr. Gaster proved this procedural error denied him the chance to present evidence of his ability to pay. The court’s judgment emphasized due process under Rule 10.23 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, exposing flaws in HMRC’s conduct and evidence on the adjournment notice.
In Purkiss v Kennedy, the High Court rejected a liquidator’s attempt to recover unpaid PAYE and NICs from Ethos Solutions Ltd’s failed tax avoidance scheme. The court found no fraudulent intent to evade HMRC under Insolvency Act 1986, Section 423. This case highlights HMRC’s challenges in tax recovery via insolvency law and the need to prove intent.
The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.
The ruling in Glaser KC & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) affects individuals who have instructed direct access barristers and had to pay fixed fees even if a trial did not go ahead. The judge’s verdict rendered this inherently unfair term effectively null and void with no quantum meruit fallback.
Deputy Costs Judge Joseph in the case of Coram v D R Dunthorn & Son Ltd [2023] EWHC 731 (SCCO) affirmed that the costs of instructing leading counsel for a three-day trial were not recoverable as they were deemed unreasonable and disproportionate for a case with a maximum value of £115,000 (settled for £75,000).
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s dismissal of Manolete Partners’ £849,278 claim against director Ebrahim Dalal, finding the evidence for alleged unreported sales too weak to meet the civil standard of proof. The case underscores the evidential challenges liquidators face when pursuing directors for purported accounting deficiencies.
In the case Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 3343 (KB), the High Court has taken it upon themselves to begin contempt proceedings against certain individuals who may have revealed the content of a judgment while it was still under embargo.
The recent decision in Jones v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm) has elated users of Crypto Exchanges operating in the UK as the Court held that the defendant Crypto Exchange should be taken as a constructive trustee in relation to the Wallet holders.
The Court of Appeal case of Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd; Faulkner v Vollin Holdings Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1371, in the context of an unfair prejudice petition filed according to Section.994 of the Companies Act of 2006, the Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning of the contractual responsibility of good faith.