Legal Reference Library

International Cases Levingston v. Levingston Australia 11.05.2017 Civil Contract be constituted by an offer and acceptance when putative offer reveal an intention to give rise, upon acceptance, to an obligation Robert Ian Edwin Partridge died on 6 October 2008. By his will made on 29 December 1995, he appointed Appellant, Mrs. Lola Levingston, as his executrix and left his estate to his only son, Mr. Rhys Partridge, second Respondent. Late Mr. Partridge and Mrs. Levingston lived together as husband and wife for 12 years prior to his death. Mrs. Levingston appeals against dismissal of her action in which she claimed that, late Mr. Partridge agreed to leave her his entire estate or, alternatively, his personal estate. Appellant’s primary claim was in contract and based on a letter dated 13 April 2005 that, she and Ian signed and sent to their solicitor. Mrs. Levingston claimed that, letter constituted an agreement in writing between Ian and Mrs. Levingston, terms of which wer...

Willers v. Joyce and another United Kingdom 20.07.2016 Tort A person who suffers damage as a result of malicious prosecution of a civil suit against him is entitled to recover that damage Principal issue in instant appeal is relating to prosecution of civil proceedings in tort of malicious prosecution. Instant appeal is from a decision striking out a claim brought by Mr Peter Willers against Mr Albert Gubay as disclosing no cause of action known to English law. Mr Willers was Mr Gubay’s right hand man for over 20 years until he was dismissed in the summer of 2009. Mr Willers was a director of Langstone Leisure Ltd. In 2010 Langstone sued Mr Willers for alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary duties in causing it to incur costs in pursuing the Aqua directors. Mr Willers defended the action, and issued a third party claim for an indemnity against Mr Gubay, on grounds that he had acted under Mr Gubay’s directions in the prosecution of the Aqua claim. It is Mr Willers’ case ...

The benefit of a contract can be assigned but not the burden, for the promisor cannot shift the burden of his obligation without a novation. The Supreme Court has upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision holding that two Indian firms, Sasan Power Ltd and North American Coal Corporation India Pvt Ltd, may conduct arbitration outside India and under a foreign law if there was an agreement to that effect. The Supreme Court has upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision holding that two Indian firms, Sasan Power Ltd and North American Coal Corporation India Pvt Ltd, may conduct arbitration outside India and under a foreign law if there was an agreement to that effect. “We see no reason to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the courts (HC) below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs,” a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre said while dismissing the plea of Reliance Power-owned Sasan Power Ltd which operates Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) at Singrauli di...

In Seagate Technology International v Vikas Goel [2016] SGHC 12 (“Seagate v Vikas ”), the defendant provided personal guarantees in favour of the plaintiff for banking facilities granted to the defendant’s company. The defendant’s company defaulted on the repayment of the banking facilities, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantee by commencing action in the Singapore Courts. Although the plaintiff commenced action against the defendant, the defendant did not enter an appearance in the case. Instead of seeking to obtain a judgment in default of appearance, the plaintiff sought to obtain judgment on the merits of its case. This was because the plaintiff intended to enforce the judgment in India, and Indian law did not recognise for enforcement purposes a foreign judgment that is obtained by default. The court in Seagate v Vikas considered the facts of the case and took the position that the most appropriate course of action was to adduce evidence in the normal course of tr...

Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England The United Kingdom Court of Appeal in 1923 determined that the duty of confidentiality owed by a bank to its clients was not absolute. Rather, it was qualified by four caveats: disclosure compelled by law; public duty to disclose; interests of bank require disclosure; disclosure is made with express or implied consent of customer. The matter arose after the Defendant learned of Plaintiff using his income for purposes other than paying off the debt owed to it. Pursuant to enquiries by Defendant, certain information regarding Plaintiff’s account was divulged to other parties. Though the Court expressed qualifications to confidentiality, it nonetheless was unequivocal that “it is an implied term of a banker’s contract with his customer that the banker shall not disclose the account, transactions relating”. The Court ordered trial afresh, with the jury made aware of the legal duties of the bank.

High Court of Australia: In the instant case, the respondent sustained serious spinal injuries which rendered her paraplegic, when she was thrown from the back seat of a car being driven by the appellant who was drunk at the time of the accident. The issue for determination was whether the respondent was contributorily negligent  for choosing to travel in the car driven by the appellant when she ought to have known that he was intoxicated and, secondly, for failing to engage her seatbelt. The trial Judge rejected the contention of the respondent that the appellant’s erratic driving had prevented her from fastening her seatbelt and held that failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence under Section 49 of the Civil Liability Act 1936. The Judge further held that the exception in Section 47(2)(b) of the Act applies in the present case as the respondent could not reasonably be expected to have avoided the risk of riding with the appellant in the circumstances. On ap...

The Tax Court of Cologne has ordered a minority shareholder to pay income and sales tax (case no. 13 K 3023/13). The shareholder was making a business out of systematically raising legal challenges and then being persuaded to withdraw his claims in return for a lavish settlement. The man cashed up to five-figure sums through his attorneys in return for dropping his objection to necessary capital increases, for example. As his holdings were in each case small (between € 10 – 500), the tax court assumed that the aim of the challenges was not the assertion of a claim for compensation. What the man in fact wanted was just one thing: to capitalize as a shareholder from his power to adopt an obstructionist position. The Tax Court of Cologne interpreted this as a long-term activity. This serves to underline the system that lies behind it. After all, the accused shareholder had been acting in exactly this manner for years, not only in his own name but also in that of a limited liability compa...

Federal Labor Court, decision dated February 10, 2015 – 9 AZR 455/13 Facts of the case The employee was employed since more than 20 years. The employer terminated the employment with immediate effect and additionally gave statutory notice of termination under due respect of the applicable notice period in case the dismissal with immediate effect may be invalid. Furthermore the letter of termination said: “In case that only the statutory notice of termination is effective, you are released from your duty to work with immediate effect, taking into account all leave and overtime claims.” The parties reached a settlement ending the employment 5 weeks after notice was given. Although this period would have sufficed to grant the entire leave, the employee claimed compensation for the leave. The Federal Labor Court sided with the plaintiff. The decision According to precedents set by the Federal Labor Court, it was possible so far to grant any remaining days of leave by releasing the empl...

Requirements for the official hearing of an employee Federal Labor Court, decision dated February 12, 2015 – 6 AZR 845/13 High demands have always been placed on terminating an employment relationship by an employer. This is especially true for so-called termination due to suspicion. Even the suspicion of a serious breach of duty can represent important grounds for an extraordinary termination of an employment relationship. A prerequisite is that the suspicion is supported by objective facts and that these suspicions destroy the trust necessary for the continuation of the employment relationship. There is a risk that the employee who will be terminated will be wrongly accused. Accordingly, the employer must make all reasonable efforts to clarify the underlying facts. This also means providing the employee with the opportunity to weigh in and comment on the allegations. The Federal Labor Court has substantiated the requirements for such an official hearing of the employee in the deci...

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania developed interpretation of provisions of the Tort law providing more guarantees to the employee injured at work in case when company (the employer) went bankrupt and extended regulations of company director liability. The Supreme Court found that in case of indirect liability (company is liable for the damages caused by its employees) and liquidation of such Company due to bankruptcy the damage incurred to injured person shall not be left because of Company bankruptcy. An employee who was injured at work shall have right to direct his request of damage compensation to the person who caused the damage. In this particular case it is the director of the Company. This interpretation is based on Principles of European Tort Law providing for liability for auxiliaries. As to the merits of the case, the employee was injured at work and the director of the Company was found guilty for the criminal offence related to labor safety and failure to en...

Lingard v. Milne-McIsaac, 2015 ONCA 213 – This Court of Appeal case arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on October 28, 2008. The plaintiff sustained injuries when his vehicle was rear-ended by an uninsured vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Accident Report (MVA Report) prepared by the police at the scene of the accident listed the driver, owner and insurance company. On June 29, 2010, the plaintiff’s doctor determined that he would require back surgery as a result of the accident. The plaintiff commenced a Statement of Claim on September 24, 2010 seeking damages from both the driver and owner of the vehicle. On or about January 25, 2011, the plaintiff learned that the defendant vehicle was uninsured and the insurance was cancelled prior to the subject accident. As a result, the plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to claim uninsured motorist coverage from his insurer, Wawanesa Insurance Company. The motion judge denied the plaintiff leave, findi...