Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors [2022] EWHC 641 (Ch) (22 March 2022)

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors [2022] EWHC 641 (Ch) (22 March 2022)

Summary judgment is refused because the Defendants' proposed amended defences on knowledge and timing are not fanciful and require resolution at trial. The evidence does not conclusively show Trafalgar lacked knowledge of the VAM sale or that payments were secret commissions. The issues are complex and unsuitable for summary determination without fuller investigation.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 641 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: James David Hadley; Second Defendant: Thomas William Gordon Biggar; Third Defendant: Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark; Fourth Defendant: Andrew Christopher Jones; Fifth Defendant: Titan Capital Partners Limited; Sixth Defendant: CGrowth Capital Bond Limited; Seventh Defendant: William Macfarland Wright III; Eighth Defendant: Pinnacle Brokers Limited (in liquidation); Ninth Defendant: Mark Lloyd; Tenth Defendant: Vivere Forti International Foundation; Eleventh Defendant: Kirsty Louise Platt; Twelfth Defendant: Platinum Pyramid Limited; Thirteenth Defendant: Bentley Jarrard Thwaite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraud / Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Application Pre Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; issues to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Fiduciary Duties, Vicarious Liability, Summary Judgment, Secret Commissions
Civil Fraud Company Law Agency Law Bribery Fiduciary Duties Vicarious Liability Summary Judgment Secret Commissions

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

James David Hadley

First Defendant

Thomas William Gordon Biggar

Second Defendant

Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark

Third Defendant

Andrew Christopher Jones

Fourth Defendant

Titan Capital Partners Limited

Fifth Defendant

CGrowth Capital Bond Limited

Sixth Defendant

William Macfarland Wright III

Seventh Defendant

Pinnacle Brokers Limited (in liquidation)

Eighth Defendant

Mark Lloyd

Ninth Defendant

Vivere Forti International Foundation

Tenth Defendant

Kirsty Louise Platt

Eleventh Defendant

Platinum Pyramid Limited

Twelfth Defendant

Bentley Jarrard Thwaite

Thirteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraud / Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Application Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted on claims of bribery against four defendants
  2. 2 Whether alleged payments constituted secret commissions/bribes under civil law
  3. 3 Whether sufficient disclosure was made to principal to defeat bribery claim

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because the Defendants' proposed amended defences on knowledge and timing are not fanciful and require resolution at trial. The evidence does not conclusively show Trafalgar lacked knowledge of the VAM sale or that payments were secret commissions. The issues are complex and unsuitable for summary determination without fuller investigation.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; issues to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Parties to liaise on form of order.
  • Parties to address whether Trafalgar opposes Defendants' proposed amendments to defences.