Prinse v Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd & Ors

Prinse v Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd & Ors

The defendants failed to establish a common mistake or outward expression of accord necessary for rectification of the consent order. The payment of £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited was a clear breach of the order. The court exercised its discretion to admit the bank statements as evidence due to the public interest in enforcing court orders, despite concerns about their provenance.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Prinse; 1st Defendant: Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Landmasters Developments Ltd; 3rd Defendant: George Nicolaides; 4th Defendant: Christopher Nicolaides; 5th Defendant: Christopher Takis Christoforou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interim Applications for Enforcement and Variation/rectification of Consent Order
Outcome
Claimant's application allowed; Defendants' cross-application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Rectification, Injunctions, Breach of Court Orders, Admissibility of Evidence
Company Law Civil Procedure Consent Orders Rectification Injunctions Breach of Court Orders Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Prinse

Claimant

Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd

1st Defendant

Landmasters Developments Ltd

2nd Defendant

George Nicolaides

3rd Defendant

Christopher Nicolaides

4th Defendant

Christopher Takis Christoforou

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Company/shareholder Dispute / Interim Applications for Enforcement and Variation/rectification of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order should be rectified or varied to allow payments to entities owned or controlled by the defendants in the ordinary course of business
  2. 2 Whether the third and fourth defendants breached the consent order by transferring £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited
  3. 3 Whether the bank statements obtained by the claimant should be admissible as evidence despite alleged improper acquisition

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish a common mistake or outward expression of accord necessary for rectification of the consent order. The payment of £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited was a clear breach of the order. The court exercised its discretion to admit the bank statements as evidence due to the public interest in enforcing court orders, despite concerns about their provenance.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application allowed; Defendants' cross-application dismissed.

Orders

  • Third and fourth defendants to procure the return of £25,000 to the second defendant company, to be used in the ordinary course of business.
  • Bank statements to be formally explained by the claimant in a witness statement verified by a statement of truth.