Instant Access Properties Ltd v Rosser & Ors
The Claimants failed to prove that the directors or shadow directors breached fiduciary duties, that any agreements were for no or inadequate consideration, or that any professional adviser was negligent or dishonest. No fraudulent trading was established. Even if technical breaches occurred, they would have been ratified or statute-barred. Accordingly, all claims fail and are dismissed.
- Parties
- Claimant: Instant Access Properties Limited (In Liquidation); First Defendant: Mr Bradley John Rosser; Second Defendant: Mrs Maria Helena Gifford; Third Defendant: Mr James Bernard Moore (A Bankrupt); Fourth Defendant: Jeffcote Donnison LLP; Fifth Defendant: Mr Phillip Donnison; Sixth Defendant: Mishcon de Reya (A Firm); Seventh Defendant: Mr Jonathan Berman; Applicants: Kevin Anthony Murphy and Richard Howard Toone (as Joint Liquidators of Instant Access Properties Limited)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (company/commercial) / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- All claims dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Directors' Duties, Shadow/de Facto Directors, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Conspiracy, Fraudulent Trading, Ratification, Limitation of Actions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Instant Access Properties Limited (In Liquidation)
Claimant
Mr Bradley John Rosser
First Defendant
Mrs Maria Helena Gifford
Second Defendant
Mr James Bernard Moore (A Bankrupt)
Third Defendant
Jeffcote Donnison LLP
Fourth Defendant
Mr Phillip Donnison
Fifth Defendant
Mishcon de Reya (A Firm)
Sixth Defendant
Mr Jonathan Berman
Seventh Defendant
Kevin Anthony Murphy and Richard Howard Toone (as Joint Liquidators of Instant Access Properties Limited)
Applicants
Procedural Posture
Civil (company/commercial) / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Moore and Mr Rosser were de facto or shadow directors of IAP and owed fiduciary duties to IAP
- 2 Whether the directors and shadow directors breached fiduciary duties by causing IAP to enter into agreements with Leadenhall and Darrencrest for no or inadequate consideration
- 3 Whether professional advisers dishonestly assisted breaches of duty or were negligent
Ratio Decidendi
The Claimants failed to prove that the directors or shadow directors breached fiduciary duties, that any agreements were for no or inadequate consideration, or that any professional adviser was negligent or dishonest. No fraudulent trading was established. Even if technical breaches occurred, they would have been ratified or statute-barred. Accordingly, all claims fail and are dismissed.
Court Disposition
All claims dismissed
Orders
- All claims against all Defendants are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment