Parkers Solicitors have experience in both bringing and defending claims in relation to the above. We also have good commercial sense and recognise there will be occasions when immediate action is required pending the decision of the court and, in these circumstances, have prepared ex parte injunctive proceedings to preserve the status quo and ensure the preservation of assets of a business.
Mr M v A Bank
Commercial Court. The Claimant defended the Defendant’s demand for payment on a bank guarantee. The Claimant pleaded that (1) the guarantee had been granted in reliance upon fraudulent misrepresentation, the bank having no belief that it had sufficient funds available to advance to the borrower (the subject of the Claimant’s guarantee) (2) the bank were liable to the borrower for damages assessed on a performance basis which materially extinguished the value of the sum claimed under the guarantee.
The matter settled under the terms of a Tomlin Order.
A Finance Company v A Company
Queen’s Bench Division Trial where the Claimant claimed legal title to a chattel (boat). Our Client evidenced on the construction of the documentation that it retained title.
A City Council v T Limited
Queen’s Bench Division claim – the Claimant sought reliance upon S.78 of the Building Act 1984 to recover demolition costs of a fire damaged building. Our Client Defendant submitted that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required a notice to be served in advance of demolition works. Such notice was not merely form but a substantive requirement, allowing a window of opportunity for judicial review of the Claimant’s proposed work. The Claimant late accepted the Defendant’s CPR/36 Offer acknowledging the application of Article 6 and the absence of a notice being served without good reason.
A Company v T Limited
Queen’s Bench Division claim. Our Defendant Client was successful (1) in its claim that it had an easement of necessity by way of right of support from the Claimant’s basement relied upon to provide the foundations of the Defendant’s 4 storey building prior to the basement being demolished. The Claimant failed to reinstate the basement foundations. (2) in rebutting the Claimant’s claim that the Defendant was the statutory agent and liable for the works carried out by the Local Authority. The Defendant successfully argued that it had no control over the works the Local Authority decided to do or how they were carried out.