Kent v Paterson-Brown & Anor

Kent v Paterson-Brown & Anor

WPB did not act as agent for Mr Kent; all share purchases and holding arrangements were with corporate entities. No trust or fiduciary relationship arose under Swiss or English law. No advisory duty was owed. TPB did not receive trust property. Claims fail on facts and law.

Parties
Claimant: John Kent; First Defendant: William Paterson-Brown; Second Defendant: Timothy Paterson-Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Agency Relationship, Purchase Trust, Share Trust, Advisory Duty, Knowing Receipt, Governing Law, Swiss Law, English Law, Fiduciary Obligations, Disclosure Duty
Trusts Agency Conflict of Laws Fiduciary Duties Agency Relationship Purchase Trust Share Trust Advisory Duty +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kent

Claimant

William Paterson-Brown

First Defendant

Timothy Paterson-Brown

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did WPB act as agent for Mr Kent in share purchases?
  2. 2 Did WPB hold purchase monies or shares on trust for Mr Kent?
  3. 3 Did WPB owe an advisory duty to Mr Kent?

Ratio Decidendi

WPB did not act as agent for Mr Kent; all share purchases and holding arrangements were with corporate entities. No trust or fiduciary relationship arose under Swiss or English law. No advisory duty was owed. TPB did not receive trust property. Claims fail on facts and law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed