In 2017, the British Standards Institution (“BSI”) launched a code of practice for financial institutions (including banks) that sought to give recommendations to organisations for protecting vulnerable customers from financial harm. Whilst a breach of the protocol may not mean immediate reimbursement by an organisation it is certainly a helpful indicator of what standards they are expected to meet and a weapon in your arsenal if you can show breaches.
On 19 November 2020 the High Court handed down judgment in the application of I.F.T. S.A.L. Offshore [2020] EWHC 3125. This application concerned an authorised push payment where the victim had sought to obtain information from the fraudsters bank about the accounts to which the money had been inadvertently transferred.
An application was made against the bank to obtain disclosure to allow the victim to pursue the unknown fraudsters. This was made under the Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust jurisdictions.Where a party receives a Norwich Pharmacal Order they are required to provide certain documents or information specified in the court order to the applicant. This application is not generally available against a respondent who is likely to be a party to the potential proceedings.
Upon receipt of the disclosure it became apparent that there was a case against the bank but under the terms of the order the victim was precluded from using the disclosure provided to pursue a claim against the bank.
I.F.T .S.A.L. Offshore made an application to vary the terms of the order so that they could use the disclosure against the bank. This was resisted by the bank but was granted by the court.
Your company culture underpins everything you do – it’s your ‘DNA’ – it’s what makes you unique. This influences how your team and customers view your business.
In our article “Fraud unravels all…?” (https://tenetlaw.co.uk/articles/fraud-unravels-all/) we considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and others [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019) where the Court sought to balance two conflicting principles of legal policy, namely that fraud unravels all, and that there must be a finality to litigation. The resulting judgment was a welcome clarification of when a judgment can be set aside for fraud. The High Court has now considered the correct test to be applied when assessing materiality, resulting in the judgment finally being set aside (Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2791 (Ch)).
We’re delighted that Tenet has been named as runner up in the Clio Reisman Awards 2020 for Legal Innovation, and that Tenet’s founder, Arun Chauhan, has been highly commended in the Sole Practitioner of the Year Award in the Law Society Excellence Awards 2020.
The Clio Reisman Awards celebrate excellence and innovation within the legal profession, recognising practitioners internationally for their contribution to the field.
The Law Society’s Sole Practitioner of the Year award also commends innovative and pioneering practitioners, who bolster new and unique ways of working within the legal industry.
The style of leadership within your company plays a pivotal role in forming its culture. It impacts your business environment, the drive of your team, and fundamentally, the sustainability of your organisation.
Leaders who instil a positive environment and working culture will enjoy the benefits of a highly involved and driven team, with everyone pulling in the same direction for a central cause.
The recent case of Hickox v Dickinson & Anor [2020] EWHC 2520 (Ch) considers the requirements for obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal order (“NPO”). The ability of the court to make such an order remains an exceptional jurisdiction, and the courts are alive to the need to prevent mere “fishing expeditions”. The judge gave welcome guidance on the requirement of a “good arguable case” of wrongdoing.
In a recent article, we considered the requirements for pleading dishonesty against a corporate body. The Court of Appeal has recently considered the standard of proof for dishonesty in the case of Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Arkhangelsky [2020] EWCA Civ 408 which resulted in the reversal of the High Court’s dismissal of a counterclaim, and a welcome clarification of the standard required to prove dishonesty.
Confidentiality throughout the mediation process is key to enabling parties to discuss settlement options frankly and without fear of those matters disclosed at mediation being used against them in any continuing litigation. However, the recent case of Berkeley Square Holdings & Ors v Lancer Property Asset Management Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1015 (Ch) serves as a reminder that the confidentiality of mediation is not completely impenetrable.
The impact on the economy of Covid-19 has been detrimental and far reaching. With the UK being officially in recession for the first time in 11 years, the Government has implemented a number of packages in order to help businesses survive these tough times, one of these is the Bounce Back Loan Scheme.