We have adopted a specialist team approach to our practices for many years. We feel that this is the way our clients want us to work, and that specialisation leads to the provision of a better service.
We have adopted a specialist team approach to our practices for many years. We feel that this is the way our clients want us to work, and that specialisation leads to the provision of a better service.
Insights
15/03/2018
Start: 9:00am (Registration and Breakfast from 8:45am)
Finish: 10:00am
Venue: Harvey Nichols, 2nd Floor Restaurant, Cabot Circus, Bristol
Morality, honesty and commercial transactions. Can they be reconciled?
“In my view it is impracticable and unreal to introduce into commercial transactions the moral standards of the vicarage…” Gloster LJ in UBS v KWL [2017] EWCA Civ 1657
In a series of recent decisions the court has seemingly imposed a sense of objective morality onto the ‘reasonable’ businessman.
Firstly, the Court of Appeal has found there can be a duty to speak in order to avoid an estoppel by silence (Ted Baker v Axa [2017] EWCA Civ 4097).
Then the Court of Appeal found a duty was incumbent on one a party to alert his counterparty to his fiduciary’s dishonest breach of duty (UBS v KWL [2017] EWCA Civ 1567).
Thirdly the High Court boldly decided that the trusts of ‘Putin’s banker’ were shams (JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch).
In this talk Stefan Ramel and John Churchill shall examine these three decisions and ask whether they amount to a trend in the law’s approach to commercial transactions of which practitioners should be wary. Or are these merely ne’er-do-wells getting their comeuppance?
Sign up
To be kept up-to-date with our latest news and future events, please complete the short form.
A member of the clerking team will help you resolve your request.
