Bates v Microstar Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1296 (30 July 2002)

Bates v Microstar Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 1296 (30 July 2002)

The Court found that the deputy judge was entitled to conclude that a binding oral agreement was reached in March 1998, that the company ratified the agreement, and that there was no repudiatory breach by the claimant. The evidence justified the grant of a freezing order and disclosure order due to the unexplained disappearance of £10 million and the conduct of the defendants. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1296
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Leslie Bates; Defendant/applicant: Microstar Limited; Defendant/applicant: Thomas Charles Combrinck
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Orders
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Authority of Company Agents, Repudiatory Breach, Freezing Injunction, Disclosure Order, Ratification of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Employment Contract Authority of Company Agents Repudiatory Breach Freezing Injunction Disclosure Order Ratification of Contract

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Leslie Bates

Claimant/respondent

Microstar Limited

Defendant/applicant

Thomas Charles Combrinck

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding employment contract entitling the claimant to remuneration, profit share, and shares in Microstar Limited
  2. 2 Whether the contract was repudiated by either party prior to the relevant date
  3. 3 Whether a freezing order and disclosure order were justified on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the deputy judge was entitled to conclude that a binding oral agreement was reached in March 1998, that the company ratified the agreement, and that there was no repudiatory breach by the claimant. The evidence justified the grant of a freezing order and disclosure order due to the unexplained disappearance of £10 million and the conduct of the defendants. There was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant defendants to pay costs of all applications before the court
  • Stay on order of Evans-Lombe J continued