Hurndell v Hurndell & Ors

Hurndell v Hurndell & Ors

The Claimant was never the beneficial owner of the disputed 32 million shares in Stanelco plc. He held them as nominee for Mr White, and the subsequent transfer to Khaki and Finale was authorised by the beneficial owner. The claim of dishonest appropriation and forgery was not established on the evidence. The claim...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: William Hurndell; First Defendant: Barrie Hozier; Fifth Defendant: David Hozier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Retrial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership of Shares, Nominee Arrangements, Breach of Listing Rules, Fraud and Dishonesty, Stock Transfer Forms, Resulting Trust, Shareholder Disputes
Equity and Trusts Company Law Beneficial Ownership of Shares Nominee Arrangements Breach of Listing Rules Fraud and Dishonesty Stock Transfer Forms Resulting Trust +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Hurndell

Claimant

Barrie Hozier

First Defendant

David Hozier

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was the beneficial owner of 32 million shares in Stanelco plc or held them as nominee for Mr White
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants dishonestly appropriated the shares from the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of shares to Khaki and Finale was authorised or fraudulent

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was never the beneficial owner of the disputed 32 million shares in Stanelco plc. He held them as nominee for Mr White, and the subsequent transfer to Khaki and Finale was authorised by the beneficial owner. The claim of dishonest appropriation and forgery was not established on the evidence. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs to the Defendants