SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Ltd & 5 Ors v Farrell

SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Ltd & 5 Ors v Farrell

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds advanced by Mr Farrell had a real prospect of success. The judge's findings that Arch owed fiduciary duties, that Mr Farrell dishonestly assisted breaches of duty, and that the waiver agreement did not bar the claim were all properly reasoned and supported by evidence. The findings of fact and law were within the range open to the trial judge and no error of law or procedure was established.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Limited & 5 Others; Defendant/appellant: Robin Farrell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Waiver and Release, Investment Management, Civil Procedure
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Fiduciary Duties Dishonest Assistance Waiver and Release Investment Management Civil Procedure

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

Parties

SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Limited & 5 Others

Claimants/respondents

Robin Farrell

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Arch owed fiduciary duties to the claimants under the Investment Management Agreements
  2. 2 Whether Mr Farrell dishonestly assisted breaches of fiduciary duty and induced breaches of contract
  3. 3 Whether the claimants expressly consented to the transaction and payment of the £3 million fee

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds advanced by Mr Farrell had a real prospect of success. The judge's findings that Arch owed fiduciary duties, that Mr Farrell dishonestly assisted breaches of duty, and that the waiver agreement did not bar the claim were all properly reasoned and supported by evidence. The findings of fact and law were within the range open to the trial judge and no error of law or procedure was established.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Costs orders of the High Court remain in force