Diamantides v JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1612 (21 December 2005)

Diamantides v JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1612 (21 December 2005)

The facts pleaded do not support the existence of advisory or fiduciary duties owed by the Bank to Mr. Diamantides personally; Pollux was the customer and any losses suffered by Mr. Diamantides are reflective of Pollux's losses. The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is therefore struck out.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1612
Parties
Claimant: Diamantis Diamantides; Defendants: JP Morgan Chase Bank and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Claim and Refusing Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Reflective Loss, Corporate Veil, Strike Out Applications, Investment Management
Commercial Law Banking Law Equity Fiduciary Duties Reflective Loss Corporate Veil Strike Out Applications Investment Management

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diamantis Diamantides

Claimant

JP Morgan Chase Bank and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Claim and Refusing Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank owed advisory and fiduciary duties to Mr. Diamantides personally as opposed to Pollux Holding Ltd or Ursa Navigation Inc.
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Diamantides's losses are merely reflective of losses suffered by Pollux and thus irrecoverable
  3. 3 Whether the statement of case discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The facts pleaded do not support the existence of advisory or fiduciary duties owed by the Bank to Mr. Diamantides personally; Pollux was the customer and any losses suffered by Mr. Diamantides are reflective of Pollux's losses. The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Permission to amend particulars of claim refused