25 Jun 2015
Defendant failed to demonstrate circumstances relevant to the core dispute that warranted investigation at trial; the documents offered did not credibly evidence repayment by share transfer and the alleged nominee relationship was peripheral to the repayment issue, therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
24 Jun 2015
Summary judgment was refused because the plaintiff’s sworn affirmation, which asserted retrospective beneficial ownership from 2008, was inconsistent with contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably share transfer opportunities and transfers in 2011) and therefore raised triable issues; accordingly the defendant was granted conditional leave to defend HCA 349, 350 and 351 of 2015 subject to undertakings preserving the status quo (no dealing with shares, setting aside dividends, and exercising rights consistent with the alleged trusts).
23 Feb 1981
The tenancy dated 30 March 1979 fell within the exclusion in Section 50(6)(j) as it existed prior to 18 December 1979, so Part II protections (including the statutory prohibition in Section 53(2)(e) as relevant) did not apply to that tenancy; the written tenancy contained no prohibition on subletting and the transaction between the tenant and Rassil Ltd. was not a sham, therefore the tenant was entitled to sublet and the plaintiff's claim for possession fails.