Schenk v Cook & Ors

Schenk v Cook & Ors

The Defendants collectively engaged in a fraudulent scheme to induce the Claimant to invest CHF 3 million through false representations, dissipated the funds for their own benefit, and are liable for conspiracy, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, and breach of fiduciary duty. The appeal of the Fourth and Sixth Defendant fails due to serious breaches of disclosure orders and lack of grounds for relief from sanctions.

Parties
Claimant: Jean-Pierre Schenk; First Defendant: Phillip Cook; Second Defendant: Pietro Stramandino; Third Defendant: Steeve Couture; Fourth and Sixth Defendant: Akbar Bawany also known as Mohammed Akbar-Samad Bawany; Fifth Defendant: Michael Sun; Sixth Defendant (trading Style of Fourth Defendant): ANA Holdings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Appeal Disposition
Outcome
Claims against all relevant Defendants succeed; appeal of Fourth and Sixth Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Orders
Civil Fraud Equity Tort Conspiracy Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Knowing Receipt Dishonest Assistance +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean-Pierre Schenk

Claimant

Phillip Cook

First Defendant

Pietro Stramandino

Second Defendant

Steeve Couture

Third Defendant

Akbar Bawany also known as Mohammed Akbar-Samad Bawany

Fourth and Sixth Defendant

Michael Sun

Fifth Defendant

ANA Holdings

Sixth Defendant (trading Style of Fourth Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment and Appeal Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to induce the Claimant to invest CHF 3 million
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are liable for conspiracy, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, and breach of fiduciary duty
  3. 3 Whether the appeal of the Fourth and Sixth Defendant against striking out of defence and entering judgment should succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants collectively engaged in a fraudulent scheme to induce the Claimant to invest CHF 3 million through false representations, dissipated the funds for their own benefit, and are liable for conspiracy, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, and breach of fiduciary duty. The appeal of the Fourth and Sixth Defendant fails due to serious breaches of disclosure orders and lack of grounds for relief from sanctions.

Court Disposition

Claims against all relevant Defendants succeed; appeal of Fourth and Sixth Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Claimant against all relevant Defendants.
  • Relief from sanctions denied to Fourth and Sixth Defendant.