Shetty v Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company & Ors

Shetty v Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company & Ors

Mr Shetty's employment claims fail due to the effect of the signed release and resignation. The payments to TSJ by suppliers were secret commissions for securing contracts with ARPD, not for genuine consultancy services. Mr Shetty and Mr Caplis, as mudirs, and Dr Wight, as agent, breached their duties to ARPD by receiving these commissions, causing direct and actual loss to ARPD. Each is liable for the proportion of commissions received. The conspiracy (ishtirak) claim fails as it was not properly established under Saudi law.

Parties
Claimant: Shekhar Dooma Shetty; First Defendant: Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company; Second Defendant: Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited; Third Defendant: Al Rushaid Parker Drilling Limited; Third Party: Thomas A. Caplis; Fourth Party: James MacDonald Wight
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimant's employment claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim and additional claim succeed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Secret Commissions, Employment Termination, Release and Settlement, Agency Law, Saudi Law Application, Directors' Duties, Constructive Trust, Conspiracy (ishtirak)
Employment Law Commercial Law Company Law Conflict of Laws Breach of Fiduciary Duty Secret Commissions Employment Termination Release and Settlement +5 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shekhar Dooma Shetty

Claimant

Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company

First Defendant

Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited

Second Defendant

Al Rushaid Parker Drilling Limited

Third Defendant

Thomas A. Caplis

Third Party

James MacDonald Wight

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Shetty was entitled to employment-related payments after signing a release
  2. 2 Whether Mr Shetty, Mr Caplis, and Dr Wight breached duties owed to ARPD by taking secret commissions
  3. 3 Whether the payments to TSJ were secret commissions or for genuine services

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Shetty's employment claims fail due to the effect of the signed release and resignation. The payments to TSJ by suppliers were secret commissions for securing contracts with ARPD, not for genuine consultancy services. Mr Shetty and Mr Caplis, as mudirs, and Dr Wight, as agent, breached their duties to ARPD by receiving these commissions, causing direct and actual loss to ARPD. Each is liable for the proportion of commissions received. The conspiracy (ishtirak) claim fails as it was not properly established under Saudi law.

Court Disposition

Claimant's employment claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim and additional claim succeed.

Orders

  • Mr Shetty and Dr Wight each liable to ARPD for US$ 1,859,682.
  • Mr Caplis liable to ARPD for US$ 1,266,266.