Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{cn}}A case which doesn’t, despite appearances, row back on the excellent principles uncovered in {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, but rather validates them.
{{cn}}A case which doesn’t, despite appearances, row back on the excellent principles uncovered in {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, but rather validates them.


{{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot}} turned on whether private bankers Arbuthnot, who had (rather cluelessly) lent Crowther €5.9m secured on a £4m property, could withhold its consent to the sale of that property.
{{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd}} turned on whether private bankers Arbuthnot, who had (rather cluelessly) lent Crowther €5.9m secured on a £4m property, could withhold its consent to the sale of that property.


The relevant clause provided:
The relevant clause provided: