Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco3 Capital Ltd & Ors

Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco3 Capital Ltd & Ors

The Defendants, through Eco3 and Dr Shadrin, fraudulently misrepresented to Ludsin the nature of the investment transaction by concealing the two-tier structure and profit differential, intending Ludsin to rely on the misrepresentation. Ludsin did rely on it and suffered loss. The other Defendants were complicit and are jointly and severally liable in deceit.

Parties
Claimant: Ludsin Overseas Limited; First Defendant: Eco3 Capital Limited; Second Defendant: Alexander Shadrin; Third Defendant: Wharf Investments Limited; Fourth Defendant: Douglas Maggs; Fifth Defendant: The Hon Charles Balfour; Sixth Defendant: Forsters LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (deceit/fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Agency, Secret Profit, Damages
Tort Law Contract Law Equity and Trusts Company Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Breach of Fiduciary Duty Agency +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ludsin Overseas Limited

Claimant

Eco3 Capital Limited

First Defendant

Alexander Shadrin

Second Defendant

Wharf Investments Limited

Third Defendant

Douglas Maggs

Fourth Defendant

The Hon Charles Balfour

Fifth Defendant

Forsters LLP

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (deceit/fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the nature of the investment transaction to the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants are liable for secret profits

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants, through Eco3 and Dr Shadrin, fraudulently misrepresented to Ludsin the nature of the investment transaction by concealing the two-tier structure and profit differential, intending Ludsin to rely on the misrepresentation. Ludsin did rely on it and suffered loss. The other Defendants were complicit and are jointly and severally liable in deceit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Ludsin £1,400,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation, being £2,000,000 less £600,000 already received from Forsters.
  • Court to hear counsel on the appropriate form of order and costs.