EUROPEAN REAL ESTATE DEBT FUND (CAYMAN) LIMITED (In Liquidation) v ANOUP TREON

EUROPEAN REAL ESTATE DEBT FUND (CAYMAN) LIMITED (In Liquidation) v ANOUP TREON

The defendants are the overall successful parties as the claims were dismissed in full on limitation grounds. However, due to the defendants' established deceit and dishonest evidence, the court departs from the general rule that costs follow the event. The just order is that there be no order as to costs, reflecting both the defendants' misconduct and the claimant's failure on limitation and some substantive issues. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success on the grounds advanced.

Parties
Claimant: European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Limited (In Liquidation); First Defendant: Anoup Treon; Second Defendant: Arundel Group Limited; Third Defendant: Dr Doraiswamy Srinivas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud/deceit) / Post Trial, Consequentials and Costs, Permission to Appeal
Outcome
No order as to costs; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Limitation of Actions, Deceit, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Costs Limitation of Actions Deceit Permission to Appeal

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Anoup Treon

First Defendant

Arundel Group Limited

Second Defendant

Dr Doraiswamy Srinivas

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud/deceit) / Post Trial, Consequentials and Costs, Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be departed from due to the defendants' dishonest conduct
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be awarded any costs despite losing on limitation
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' conduct amounted to an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants are the overall successful parties as the claims were dismissed in full on limitation grounds. However, due to the defendants' established deceit and dishonest evidence, the court departs from the general rule that costs follow the event. The just order is that there be no order as to costs, reflecting both the defendants' misconduct and the claimant's failure on limitation and some substantive issues. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success on the grounds advanced.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs between the parties
  • Permission to appeal refused