The Court of Appeal dismissed 56 Fellows Road Limited’s appeal, holding that Mr Wolanski’s personal payment did not discharge the company’s judgment debt to ABC Block Management Limited.
RR UK (South) Ltd v Firstsource Solutions UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1210 (Ch) (15 April 2026)
The High Court refused to let the defendant raise an unpleaded agency argument about a fraudster-induced payment, and barred revision of the issues list.
56 Fellows Road Ltd v ABC Block Management Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 401 (31 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that a director’s card payment to enforcement agents was made personally, not for the company, so the judgment debt remained unpaid.
Tangent Properties (North) Ltd v Evans Homes (Skelton) No 2 Ltd [2026] EWHC 298 (Ch) (13 February 2026)
High Court trial over an alleged 10% profit share for introducing and promoting the Skelton Site. The court found no binding contract, estoppel, or unjust enrichment.
Upper Tribunal tax penalty appeal about EBT schemes, careless inaccuracy, deliberate inaccuracy, agency, and fairness. Careless and deliberate penalties were set aside; agency and fairness grounds failed.
The Privy Council held CS Life owed a contractual investment duty, but adjusted damages start dates and dismissed the cross-appeal on misrepresentation.
The Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the claimant's claim without giving reasonable notice as required by Rule 37(2), particularly given the complexity of the case and the claimant's status as a litigant in person. The inclusion of the strike out application in the ET3 and discussion at the hearing did not amount to reasonable notice. The strike out decision is overturned and the matter is remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Barnett v General Subsidiary 2 Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2830 (Ch) (07 November 2025)
The High Court held that Cyan was entitled to funds held by the administrator, rejecting the GM Companies’ agency theory and adjourning HPL’s trust claim.
There was a material change in circumstances due to amendment of the claim and discovery of double invoicing, justifying the Defendants' discharge application. However, there remains a seriously arguable claim for proprietary and freezing injunctions. The Claimant failed to comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure, but the failure was not deliberate. The interests of justice require the injunctions to continue until trial, with a costs sanction imposed on the Claimant.