Paul Hague v The Green Mineral Company Limited & Ors

Paul Hague v The Green Mineral Company Limited & Ors

GMC would not have continued to receive clays for free after the revocation of the licence, and would have had to acquire clays at market price to perform the Galliford Try contract. The market price exceeded the contract price, so GMC would have made no profit and suffered no loss from the diversion. The claimant failed to prove any recoverable loss.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Hague; First Defendant: The Green Mineral Company Limited; Second Defendant: Warren Greenwood; Third Defendant: Soil Hill Quarries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Inquiry as to Loss Following Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Claim for loss dismissed; no loss established
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Directors' Duties, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Compensation, Loss Assessment
Company Law Equity Derivative Actions Directors' Duties Breach of Fiduciary Duty Equitable Compensation Loss Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Hague

Claimant

The Green Mineral Company Limited

First Defendant

Warren Greenwood

Second Defendant

Soil Hill Quarries Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Inquiry as to Loss Following Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant (GMC) suffered loss as a result of the diversion of the Galliford Try contract by the Second Defendant to the Third Defendant
  2. 2 Whether GMC would have had to pay for clays to fulfil the contract had it not been diverted, and if so, at what price
  3. 3 Whether the revocable licence to extract clays would have continued or been terminated independently of the diversion

Ratio Decidendi

GMC would not have continued to receive clays for free after the revocation of the licence, and would have had to acquire clays at market price to perform the Galliford Try contract. The market price exceeded the contract price, so GMC would have made no profit and suffered no loss from the diversion. The claimant failed to prove any recoverable loss.

Court Disposition

Claim for loss dismissed; no loss established