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"
The defendants were professional solicitor trustees of a trust established by the will of the claimants’ father. The claimants were the beneficiaries of the will trust, who were minors when their father died. The deceased’s will provided that the claimants’ shares would be held on trust for them until they turned 25, so the defendants invested the trust fund with the assistance of professional investment advice given by Taylor Young Investment Management Ltd (Taylor Young).
The claimants subsequently sought compensation from the trustees in the sum of £1,476,076 on the basis that ...
In 1998 the appellant solicitor transferred $1.2m without his clients’ knowledge and authority and in breach of fiduciary duty to the respondents. Proceedings were issued in 2012. The appellant argued the claim was statute-barred pursuant to s21(3) Limitation Act 1980. The respondents relied upon a letter written by the appellant in 2006 as constituting an acknowledgement of the claim for the purposes of s29(5) of the Act, which provides:
‘where any right of action has accrued to recover… any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim… and the person li...
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 ...
Continue reading "Trusts: Consequences of non-compliance"
The claim arose from a purported sale of a property to the claimant by a fraudster who purported to be, but was not in fact, the registered owner of the property. By the time the fraud was discovered the whole of the purchase price had been paid by the claimant to the second defendant (the claimant’s conveyancer), by the second defendant to the first defendant (the fraudster’s solicitor) and by the first defendant to an account in Dubai upon the fraudster’s instructions.
The fraudster’s instructions to the first defendant were that the property had been given to him by his father,...
This was an appeal from a judgment of the Chief Justice dated 12 March 2013 and his subsequent order of 24 April 2013 which required the trustees of a trust to produce financial information to a beneficiary of the trust who was interested in 35% of the trust fund (the minor beneficiary). This appeal was brought by the appointed protector of the trust who was also the principal beneficiary of the trust.
The trust deed contained an information control mechanism (clause 9.2 of the trust deed) which prevented the disclosure of financial information to a beneficiary unless the prot...
The claimant, Mr Brudenell-Bruce Earl of Cardigan brought a claim for breach of trust against two trustees of the Savernake Estate Trust (Mr Moore and Mr Cotton) of which he is a beneficiary. He also challenged the trustees’ remuneration and sought their removal as trustees.
The estate consists of numerous properties including a mansion, Tottenham House with an adjacent stable block. The estate is held on trust for sale and within a partnership with 49% of the partnership belonging to Lord Cardigan absolutely and 51% held by the trustees of the Children’s Trust, the beneficiaries ...
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...