Officer not personally liable if acting ‘bona fide’ within scope of authority
Nerijus Antuzis and Ors v Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 843 (QB)
This case discusses a preliminary issue which is relevant to upcoming case, which will discuss the alleged exploitative working conditions of Lithuanian nationals employed at various farms to catch chickens, which were then transported for slaughter and subsequent human consumption. The applicant’s contend they worked extremely long hours and were paid less than the statutory minimum prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Act and the Orders made under it.The preliminary issue to be heard was whether the second and third defendants are personally, jointly and/or severally liable to the claimants for the first defendant’s breaches of contract. The present proceedings do not involve the fourth defendant.Held: The principle in Said v Butt exempts an officer of a company from personal liability for the tort of inducing breach of contract by that company if he is acting “bona fide within the scope of his authority”.Mr Justice Lane confirmed that the focus of the “bona fide” inquiry is on an officer’s conduct and intention in relation to his duties towards the company, not towards the third party (adopting the approach of the Court of Appeal of Singapore in Arthaputra and others v St Microelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others [2018] SGCA 17). Thus an officer will not be personally liable if his acts, in his capacity as an officer, are not in themselves in breach of any fiduciary or other personal legal duties owed to the company
Claimant ordered to pay £460,000 as security for defendant’s costs, despite having assets frozen
Stunt v Associated Newspapers [2019] EWHC 511 (QB)
In this case the defendant, Associated Newspapers, applied for the claimant, James Stunt, to provide security for the defendant’s costs of the claim for a sum of £700,000.The judge determined that the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him. However, he found the terms of this security of costs order may be in conflict between the terms of a previous Restraint Order received by the Claimant six months earlier. The judge was persuaded the existence of the Restraint Order provided a reason in favour of exercising his discretion to grant an order for security in the present case.Consequentially the security for costs order was allowed, but the judge made clear it was wholly without prejudice to the Restraint Order.Antony White QC was involved in this case.
Court dismisses claim arising from African Minerals Ltd’s mining activities in Tonkolili
Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 3506 (QB)
The Claimants were residents of remote rural villages in Sierra Leone. They brought claims for battery, false imprisonment, negligence and other torts arising out of the brutal repression of protests by the Sierra Leonean Police (with the support and assistance of the Defendant) in 2010 and 2012. Although the Court acknowledged the widespread use of excessive and unlawful force, and made a number of adverse findings with respect to the conduct of the Defendant (including its failure to take reasonable steps aimed at mitigating the risk of such violence), the Court found that the claims were not made out.
Libel claim by MP, decision on meaning
Daniel Poulter MP v Times Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 3900 (QB)
Judgment on meaning in a libel action concerning allegations of sexual assault.
Court dismisses application for compensation in representative class action over Google’s secret internet activity tracking via the Safari Workaround
Lloyd v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB)
In this case it is alleged that there was a breach of duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The allegation is that over some months in 2011-2012 Google acted in breach of that duty by secretly tracking the internet activity of Apple iPhone users, collating and using the information it obtained by doing […]