This was an appeal against summary judgment on a claim for equitable compensation for £13,149,479 plus interest at 2.5% pa compounded annually.
A was a director of R. A and his sister (Ms Patel) had founded R and had been sole directors and (directly and indirectly) owned all of the shares. Between 2009 and 2014, A had caused R to pay £13,763,452 against sham invoices to Dubai companies. The Dubai companies had retained 5-10% of the invoiced sums and paid the balance to A (and Ms Patel’s) personal bank accounts, to them in cash, and to third parties for the purchase of a New York ...
Continue reading "Remedies: A costly error"
This was a trial of the preliminary issue of whether claims made by the joint liquidators of two Jersey-incorporated companies against the respondents were time-barred as a matter of Jersey law.
In the proceedings, the applicants claimed that between 10 April 2007 and 10 June 2008 payments were made of €16m and €18m from ‘Level One’ and ‘Special Opportunity’ respectively, to or for the benefit of the first respondent or companies owned beneficially by him. Those payments were claimed not to have been made in good faith for a legitimate commercial purpose of the companies, and the ...
W and the defendant embarked on a project with the aim of acquiring a substantial interest in an English company, TSE, which started with the acquisition of 125,000 TSE shares in 2002 (the first tranche). In 2003 they attempted to make additional acquisitions of TSE shares, such attempts involving three of W’s companies, including the plaintiff. The overall scheme was that funds would be provided by one company, Assanzon, for the acquisition of shares for another company, Momentum, which were held for its beneficial owners which were principally the plaintiff company, Libertarian. The fu...
The appellant bank instructed the respondent solicitors to act in relation to a £3.3m re-mortgage on behalf of themselves and the borrowers. The borrowers’ property (the property) was already subject to a first charge in favour of Barclays. A part of the respondent’s instructions was to redeem the outstanding Barclays mortgage and to secure a first charge against the property in the appellant’s favour.
Due to an oversight, the respondents paid only £1,23m of the outstanding £1.5m Barclays loan and then transferred the balance to the borrowers. Having realised their error, the resp...
In 2006, Drs Ravindra and Salma Sondhi applied to the claimant (AIB) for a loan of £3.3m, to be secured against their private home, in order to provide finance for their business. The application stated that the Sondhis’ home was worth £4.5m but was subject to an existing mortgage in favour of Barclays Bank to secure an outstanding loan of £1.5m. AIB agreed to the loan but required security over the Sondhis’ home in the form of first legal charge. AIB instructed the defendant (MRC) to act for it in connection with the remortgage and provided MRC with a facility letter which s...