Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors [2018] EWHC 58 (Comm) (11 January 2018)

Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors [2018] EWHC 58 (Comm) (11 January 2018)

The judgments in default were set aside because (1) there was an agreement or understanding that the claimant would not seek default judgment after 4 August 2016, which was breached; (2) each defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, given the serious factual disputes and issues of Thai law; and (3) the seriousness of the allegations and quantum at stake justify a full trial.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 58 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Apollo Ventures Co., Ltd; First Defendant: Surinder Singh Manchanda; Second Defendant: Gurmukh Singh Manchanda; Third Defendant: Gurbaksh Singh Manchanda; Fourth Defendant: Gurdev Kaur Manchanda; Fifth Defendant: Gursev Singh Manchanda; Sixth Defendant: Simrat Kaur Manchanda; Seventh Defendant: 4G Properties Limited; Eighth Defendant: HKM Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Trust) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments Under CPR 13.3
Outcome
Judgments in default set aside against all defendants.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Fraud, Constructive Trust, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Foreign Law (thai Law)
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Trusts and Equity Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Fraud Constructive Trust Unlawful Means Conspiracy +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apollo Ventures Co., Ltd

Claimant

Surinder Singh Manchanda

First Defendant

Gurmukh Singh Manchanda

Second Defendant

Gurbaksh Singh Manchanda

Third Defendant

Gurdev Kaur Manchanda

Fourth Defendant

Gursev Singh Manchanda

Fifth Defendant

Simrat Kaur Manchanda

Sixth Defendant

4G Properties Limited

Seventh Defendant

HKM Investments Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Trust) / Application to Set Aside Default Judgments Under CPR 13.3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement precluding the claimant from seeking default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to seek judgment for the full amount claimed
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or other good reason for setting aside judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The judgments in default were set aside because (1) there was an agreement or understanding that the claimant would not seek default judgment after 4 August 2016, which was breached; (2) each defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, given the serious factual disputes and issues of Thai law; and (3) the seriousness of the allegations and quantum at stake justify a full trial.

Court Disposition

Judgments in default set aside against all defendants.

Orders

  • Judgments in default against all defendants are set aside under CPR 13.3(1)(a) and (b).
  • Parties to agree a draft order reflecting the findings.