SELECT LIFESTYLES LIMITED v DEAN NORMAN

SELECT LIFESTYLES LIMITED v DEAN NORMAN

The defendant owed a duty to account as a fiduciary/director. The FAR report did not constitute an adequate account. There was no real prospect of the defendant resisting the order for an account. The absence of certain documents did not hinder the defendant from providing an account. Summary judgment was appropriate on this narrow issue. Costs follow the event, but indemnity costs were not justified.

Parties
First Claimant / Part 20 Defendant: Select Lifestyles Limited; Second Claimant: N&C Horton (A Firm); Third Claimant: Hortons Motorcycles Limited; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Dean Norman; Third Party/second Part 20 Defendant: Nicholas John Horton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (fiduciary/trusts/directors' Duties) / Summary Judgment Application on Preliminary Points
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for an account; costs awarded to claimants on standard basis; payment on account ordered; no penal notice attached at this stage.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duty to Account, Summary Judgment, Provision of Accounts by Fiduciaries, Case Management Discretion, Costs and Indemnity Costs
Equity and Trusts Company Law Civil Procedure Fiduciary Duty to Account Summary Judgment Provision of Accounts by Fiduciaries Case Management Discretion Costs and Indemnity Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Select Lifestyles Limited

First Claimant / Part 20 Defendant

N&C Horton (A Firm)

Second Claimant

Hortons Motorcycles Limited

Third Claimant

Dean Norman

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Nicholas John Horton

Third Party/second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (fiduciary/trusts/directors' Duties) / Summary Judgment Application on Preliminary Points

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty to account as a fiduciary/director
  2. 2 Whether an adequate account had been provided
  3. 3 Whether the application for summary judgment was properly constituted

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed a duty to account as a fiduciary/director. The FAR report did not constitute an adequate account. There was no real prospect of the defendant resisting the order for an account. The absence of certain documents did not hinder the defendant from providing an account. Summary judgment was appropriate on this narrow issue. Costs follow the event, but indemnity costs were not justified.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for an account; costs awarded to claimants on standard basis; payment on account ordered; no penal notice attached at this stage.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide an account, verified by affidavit, of transactions referenced in the schedules to the 10th February 2021 letter (or updated schedule) within a specified period.
  • Claimants to provide limited HSBC bank statements if available; if not, reasons to be given for unavailability.