My summary of the case is: A trial judge — he wasn't named in the Court of Appeal but his name can easily be discovered — had dismissed plaintiff's
claim against the defendant bank and a solicitor for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The case involved issues as to the interpretation of DIFC regulatory law and
claims against the defendant bank in both contract and tort.
Not exact matches
The
bank's
claims in deceit, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt (totalling about US$ 175 million) were upheld, and indemnity costs orders were made
against the
defendants.
Reported cases include: Gill v Meyers (reasonableness and UCTA), Films Rover v Cannon Film Sales (test for grant of mandatory interlocutory injunction), Standard Chartered
Bank v PNSC and others (for SGS); Mattis v Toussaint (acted for
defendant in successfully resisting
claim for finder's fee in respect of stolen painting), Yukong Lines v Rendsburg — The Rialto (tortious conspiracy and ancillary injunctive relief
against controller of corporation), REC v Thames Water (test for grant of interlocutory injunction in field of electricity supply), De Molestina and Others v Ponton (acted for
defendant in successfully rescission of share distribution agreements), and Marubeni Corporation v Government of Mongolia (
claim on state guarantee)
In Bolt Burdon v Tariq & Ors [2016] EWHC 811 (QB), Tariq and the other
defendants asked the firm to represent them on a contingency fee basis in a
claim against AlIied Irish
Bank over a mis - sold interest rate swap.
Worldwide tracing and freezing injunctions in support of Noga's
claim against the Abacha
defendants and a well known
bank arising out of their dealings with funds in which Noga
claim a beneficial interest; whether Noga had an equitable proprietary interest in the bills of exchange and their proceeds under their contract with the Russian Federation; whether individuals in the governments of Russia and / or Nigeria acted fraudulently.
Schuckman Realty v. Marine Midland
Bank (244 A.D. 2d 400)- broker not entitled to recover a commission from
defendant under contract theory where broker entered into brokerage agreements with parties other than the
defendant; broker's
claim against defendant in quantum meruit fails due to the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement governing the particular subject matter (i.e., commission agreement between broker and other parties).