Diamantides v JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors

Diamantides v JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors

The facts pleaded by Mr. Diamantides did not support the existence of any duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to him personally by the Bank; all relevant agreements and dealings were with the companies, which were the Bank's customers. The claim was an impermissible attempt to pierce the corporate veil. The particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, justifying strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Diamantis Diamantides; Respondents/defendants: JP Morgan Chase Bank and others; Defendant/claimant (in Cross Action): Pollux Holding Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) Decision Striking Out Claim and Refusing Amendment/consolidation
Legal Topics
Duties of Care by Banks, Fiduciary Duties, Reflective Loss, Corporate Veil, Strike Out Applications
Banking Law Company Law Equity Duties of Care by Banks Fiduciary Duties Reflective Loss Corporate Veil Strike Out Applications

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diamantis Diamantides

Appellant/claimant

JP Morgan Chase Bank and others

Respondents/defendants

Pollux Holding Limited

Defendant/claimant (in Cross Action)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) Decision Striking Out Claim and Refusing Amendment/consolidation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the facts pleaded disclosed a reasonable cause of action by Mr. Diamantides personally against the Bank
  2. 2 Whether the Bank owed duties of care or fiduciary duties to Mr. Diamantides personally, as opposed to the corporate vehicles (Ursa/Pollux)
  3. 3 Whether the loss claimed by Mr. Diamantides was merely reflective of the loss suffered by Pollux

Ratio Decidendi

The facts pleaded by Mr. Diamantides did not support the existence of any duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to him personally by the Bank; all relevant agreements and dealings were with the companies, which were the Bank's customers. The claim was an impermissible attempt to pierce the corporate veil. The particulars of claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, justifying strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).