Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v Koshy & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1805 (3 December 2002)

Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd v Koshy & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1805 (3 December 2002)

The court held that the amendments made to the order of 28 March 2001 on 25 July 2001, specifically the deletion of paragraph 1(b) in the recital, did not reflect the court's intention. The intention was to set aside Harman J's order only as against Mr Koshy, not to leave him bound by the declaration regarding Lasco. Therefore, paragraph 1(b) should be reinstated in the recital to accurately reflect the court's intention.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1805
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Gwembe Valley Development Company Limited; First Defendant/applicant: Thomas Koshy; Second Defendant and Others: Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application Under CPR 40.12 to Correct Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Correction of Court Orders, Constructive Trusts, Summary Judgment, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Correction of Court Orders Constructive Trusts Summary Judgment Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Gwembe Valley Development Company Limited

Claimant/respondent

Thomas Koshy

First Defendant/applicant

Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited and others

Second Defendant and Others

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application Under CPR 40.12 to Correct Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to the order of 28 March 2001 inadvertently altered the effect of Harman J's order as against Mr Koshy
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 1(b) of Harman J's order should be reinstated in the recital of the 28 March 2001 order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the amendments made to the order of 28 March 2001 on 25 July 2001, specifically the deletion of paragraph 1(b) in the recital, did not reflect the court's intention. The intention was to set aside Harman J's order only as against Mr Koshy, not to leave him bound by the declaration regarding Lasco. Therefore, paragraph 1(b) should be reinstated in the recital to accurately reflect the court's intention.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Paragraph 1(b) of Harman J's order of 20 March 1998 to be reinstated in the recital of the 28 March 2001 order
  • Costs assessed at £6,000, to include VAT, awarded to the applicant