Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm) (03 October 2017)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm) (03 October 2017)

Sinclair Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of inability to pay, have no assets in jurisdiction, and Article 6 ECHR is not implicated; only effective sanction is unless order debarring them from defending unless costs paid.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited; 1st Defendant: Thomas Ian Sinclair; 2nd Defendant: Sokol Holdings Inc.; 3rd Defendant: Eagle Point Investments Limited; 4th Defendant: The Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (max Action and Temujin Action) / Application for Unless Order and Disclosure Order
Outcome
Unless order granted; Sinclair Defendants debarred from defending Max Action unless £1,173,111.53 paid within 28 days.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unless Orders, Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Fiduciary Duties, Constructive Trust, Fraud, Equitable Compensation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Orders Unless Orders Disclosure Abuse of Process Fiduciary Duties Constructive Trust +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited

Claimant

Thomas Ian Sinclair

1st Defendant

Sokol Holdings Inc.

2nd Defendant

Eagle Point Investments Limited

3rd Defendant

The Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (max Action and Temujin Action) / Application for Unless Order and Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sinclair Defendants should be debarred from defending due to non-payment of costs orders
  2. 2 Whether disclosure obligations have been met

Ratio Decidendi

Sinclair Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of inability to pay, have no assets in jurisdiction, and Article 6 ECHR is not implicated; only effective sanction is unless order debarring them from defending unless costs paid.

Court Disposition

Unless order granted; Sinclair Defendants debarred from defending Max Action unless £1,173,111.53 paid within 28 days.

Orders

  • Unless Sinclair Defendants pay £1,173,111.53 within 28 days, they are debarred from defending Max Action.
  • Disclosure order: Sinclair Defendants must disclose documents per Disclosure Schedule unless already disclosed in specified prior proceedings.