King v Tune & Ors [2004] EWHC 1505 (Comm) (26 June 2004)

King v Tune & Ors [2004] EWHC 1505 (Comm) (26 June 2004)

The claimant has a good arguable case for title to sue as sole beneficiary of the Foundation and shareholder of Lemur. The pleadings, both as originally formulated and as amended, disclose a cause of action against the Jeeves defendants as joint tortfeasors in fraud. However, the claim arises from the Contract of Mandate, which contains an arbitration clause, and therefore the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1505 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Carolyn Jane King; First Defendant: Malcolm Eliott Tune; Eighth Defendant: Bryan Jeeves; Ninth Defendant: Alexander Jeeves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction And/or Stay Proceedings
Outcome
Stay granted
Legal Topics
Fraud, Deceit, Joint Tortfeasorship, Conspiracy to Defraud, Constructive Trusts, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Stay, Reflective Loss
Commercial Law Tort Law Trusts and Equity Arbitration Fraud Deceit Joint Tortfeasorship Conspiracy to Defraud +4 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Jane King

Claimant

Malcolm Eliott Tune

First Defendant

Bryan Jeeves

Eighth Defendant

Alexander Jeeves

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Order Granting Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction And/or Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has title to sue for losses suffered by the Foundation and Lemur
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action against the Jeeves defendants as joint tortfeasors in fraud
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 due to an arbitration clause

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a good arguable case for title to sue as sole beneficiary of the Foundation and shareholder of Lemur. The pleadings, both as originally formulated and as amended, disclose a cause of action against the Jeeves defendants as joint tortfeasors in fraud. However, the claim arises from the Contract of Mandate, which contains an arbitration clause, and therefore the proceedings must be stayed in favour of arbitration.

Court Disposition

Stay granted

Orders

  • Proceedings against the Eighth and Ninth Defendants stayed pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction not set aside