header-logo header-logo

30 June 2016
Issue: 7705 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Agreement

Harb v Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz [2016] EWCA Civ 556, [2016] All ER (D) 102 (Jun)

 

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal against a finding that there had been an agreement between him and the claimant that he would pay her £12m and transfer two properties to her. It further allowed his appeal against a finding that he had been acting in his personal capacity and not as an agent. The judge had failed to examine the evidence and the arguments with the care that the parties had been entitled to expect and which a proper resolution of the issues had demanded. However, there had been no apparent bias on the part of the judge against the defendant.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll