Ecclestone v Khyami [2014] EWHC 29 (QB) (20 January 2014)

Ecclestone v Khyami [2014] EWHC 29 (QB) (20 January 2014)

The Lamborghini Aventador was a gift from Ms Ecclestone to Mr Khyami, who had title and was entitled to raise monies secured on the car. Elite had a valid security interest and took possession after default. Ms Ecclestone had possession but not a better right. Conversion claims by Elite and Ansol succeeded. Ms Ecclestone's claim for conversion failed. The injunction was discharged. Inquiry under the cross-undertaking in damages was ordered.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 29 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tamara Ecclestone; First Defendant: Omar Khyami; Second Defendant: Elite Performance Cars Limited; Third Defendant: Ansol Trading Limited trading as Four Seasons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for conversion by Ms Ecclestone dismissed; counterclaims for conversion by Elite and Ansol succeed; injunction discharged; inquiry under cross-undertaking in damages ordered.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Illegality, Gift, Security Interest, Rescission, Conspiracy

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamara Ecclestone

Claimant

Omar Khyami

First Defendant

Elite Performance Cars Limited

Second Defendant

Ansol Trading Limited trading as Four Seasons

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether the Lamborghini Aventador was a gift from Ms Ecclestone to Mr Khyami
  2. 2 Whether Mr Khyami transferred title or security interest in the car to Elite
  3. 3 Whether Elite transferred title in the car to Ansol

Ratio Decidendi

The Lamborghini Aventador was a gift from Ms Ecclestone to Mr Khyami, who had title and was entitled to raise monies secured on the car. Elite had a valid security interest and took possession after default. Ms Ecclestone had possession but not a better right. Conversion claims by Elite and Ansol succeeded. Ms Ecclestone's claim for conversion failed. The injunction was discharged. Inquiry under the cross-undertaking in damages was ordered.

Court Disposition

Claim for conversion by Ms Ecclestone dismissed; counterclaims for conversion by Elite and Ansol succeed; injunction discharged; inquiry under cross-undertaking in damages ordered.

Orders

  • Ms Ecclestone's claim dismissed
  • Elite and Ansol's counterclaims for conversion succeed