Law360, London: The crackdown by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) on dirty money could dominate the attention of white collar lawyers in the second half of 2025 as the agency pursues two cases that could define the circumstances in which it can seize suspected criminal money. Elsewhere, pressure could also begin to mount on prosecutors as they decide whether to charge former employees of a UK betting giant following a blockbuster deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) that brought an end to a major bribery probe. Law360 looks here at those and other corporate crime cases to watch in the year ahead.

This Practice Note on deceit claims considers the requirements to bring a claim in the common law tort for deceit (false statement, intent, reliance, damage suffered). A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party. For further guidance on bringing deceit claims see Practice Notes: • Deceit claims—pleading and standard of proof • Remedies in deceit claims Deceit claim—what is it? A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party. The common law tort of deceit is distinct from, though shares many similarities with, a claim in misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Deceit claims—pleading and standard of proof. Illustration—Connolly v Bellway Homes—property transaction In Connolly v Bellway Homes, the seller of development land was able to obtain damages from the buyer on the basis that it relied upon a statement by the buyer about the value per square foot of development land. The figure suggested by the buyer was used as

As set out in The economic torts—overview, the law makes provision to protect a person’s trade or business from acts which are considered to be unacceptable. For guidance on claims for: • the tort of intentional violation with the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt, see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt) • unlawful interference, see Practice Note: Economic tort of unlawful interference • conspiracy (both by lawful and unlawful means), see Practice Note: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) • based on unconscionable and intimidating conduct, see Practice Note: Economic duress—undue influence—tort of intimidation This Practice Note considers the economic tort of procuring a breach of contract (also known as inducing a breach of contract, sometimes called ‘interference with contractual relations’). Civil claims involving fraud and dishonesty often rely on pleading one or more of the economic torts, on which see Practice Note: Civil fraud—causes of action (heads of claim). What is the tort of procuring a breach of contract? The tort of procuring a breach of

IP analysis: This case is of interest to trade mark lawyers who advise clients on and litigate trade marks, particularly where the trade marks are licensed. In the UK, trade mark licenses can be registered, which confers benefits on the licensee, but there are also more subtle benefits for the licensor, which are explored in this judgment. Although the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) sets out the rules of the statutory licensing scheme, its effects and who it applies to, practical questions can and do arise. This case provides a close analysis of the scheme, and answers three discrete questions. First, sub-licensees of an exclusive license need not necessarily be registered to recover damages; second, non-exclusive sub licensees may not be joined to proceedings; and third, while late registration of a licence can cure non-registration, there are significant safety mechanisms to prevent over-recovery or improper recovery of damages. Written by Sam Fisher, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case is of interest to practitioners for three reasons. First, when oral contracts are in issue, determination on a summary basis is rarely appropriate—and the existence of a transcript does not necessarily change that. Second, the interaction between unjust enrichment and contract is a complex area of law. This case stands as a warning that practitioners should be wary about seeking summary determination of unjust enrichment claims when a relevant contract may be lurking in the background. Third, an argument that there has been a breach of the duty to provide full and frank disclosure can come too late; any such argument should be raised at the earliest opportunity if it is to bite. Written by Tim Benham-Mirando, barrister at Serle Court (and junior counsel in the case).

Private Client analysis: Section 731 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) imposes a charge to income tax on an individual who receives a benefit as a result of a ‘relevant transfer’ (broadly a transaction which results in income arising to a person abroad) and/or associated operations (broadly an operation effected in relation to the relevant transfer). The issues in Moran concerned whether a benefit admittedly received by the taxpayer had been received as a result of operations which were associated operations in relation to a relevant transfer; whether the motive defence in ITA 2007, s 739 applied; and whether EU law impacted on that analysis. Written by Rory Mullan KC, barrister at Old Square Tax Chambers.

It is commonly the case that where the seller of a property or land wishes to share in the uplift in value of that land in the event that it is developed or acquires planning permission, an agreement will be entered into with the purchaser for the payment of overage. This is an obligation on the purchaser to pay a defined amount or an amount calculated by a formula should certain triggering events happen within a defined period of time. The overage agreement will ordinarily be protected by a restriction on the title as well as a personal covenant to make

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court was seized with cross-applications in the context where a worldwide freezing order (WFO) and proprietary injunctions had been granted at a without notice hearing and continued thereafter. The court considered whether to discharge a WFO and proprietary injunctions that had been obtained based on an applicant’s undertaking not to enforce in any other jurisdiction other than England and Wales. The court also had to consider whether a sole shareholder in a company who had the power to control that company, owned that company’s assets in equity, such that the company’s assets could be said to be his assets. This required a consideration of the so-called Extended Definition of assets under an (otherwise) standard form WFO and competing authorities as the correct approach. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Pensions analysis: The judgment of HHJ Hess in W v H (divorce financial remedies) is welcome because it sets out, with admirable clarity, the approach the courts and practitioners should (and very frequently don’t) take in relation to the distribution of pensions on divorce in needs cases. Jack Rundall, barrister, at Pump Court Chambers, analyses the issues.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment sets out the court’s treatment of the principal sum of a secured debt in a mental health crisis moratorium (MHCM) under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations), SI 2020/1311. In particular, it clarifies that the principal sum of a secured debt is not a ‘qualifying debt’ for the purposes of the Regulations, therefore allowing secured creditors to enforce such principal amount during a MHCM. The court also considered whether interest would continue to accrue on the principal during the MHCM and held that, as it is not a ‘moratorium debt’ under the Regulations, interest continues to run and is recoverable by creditors. Written by Kunal Gadhvi, partner at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Rule 30A(2) of the ET Rules states certain conditions must be satisfied (including all parties consenting) where an application for a postponement is made less than seven days before a hearing: 'Where a party makes an application for a postponement of a hearing less than 7 days before the date on which the hearing begins, the Tribunal may only order the postponement where— (a) all other parties consent to the postponement and— (i) it is practicable and appropriate for the purposes of giving the parties the opportunity to resolve their disputes by agreement; or (ii) it is otherwise in accordance with the overriding objective; (b) the application was necessitated by an act or omission of another party

Personal Injury analysis: Is the law on credit hire agreements in need of revision? Kate Sweeney, partner, and Barry Sutton, claims hire manager in the road traffic accident department at Stephensons Solicitors, examine the common issues in this area of law.