Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 4329 (QB) (18 December 2014)

Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 4329 (QB) (18 December 2014)

The claimant's failure to disclose the criminal charges against a key witness was a breach of duty but not a grave one; the other alleged non-disclosures were not material. The claimant has a good arguable case in fraud and trust, and the balance of convenience supports continuation of the injunctions, subject to variations to protect the interests of all creditors.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4329
Parties
Claimant: ECO QUEST PLC; First Defendant: GFI CONSULTANTS LTD; Second Defendant: Andrew Nathaniel Skeene; Third Defendant: Junie (also Junier) Conrad Omari Bowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings / Application to Continue Injunction and Freezing Injunction; Application to Set Aside Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure
Outcome
Application to set aside injunctions dismissed; injunction and freezing injunction continued until trial or further order, subject to variations.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Constructive Trusts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Bankruptcy, Winding Up, Adequacy of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Insolvency Fraud Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Constructive Trusts Fraudulent Misrepresentation +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ECO QUEST PLC

Claimant

GFI CONSULTANTS LTD

First Defendant

Andrew Nathaniel Skeene

Second Defendant

Junie (also Junier) Conrad Omari Bowers

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings / Application to Continue Injunction and Freezing Injunction; Application to Set Aside Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to disclose material facts when obtaining the injunction and freezing injunction
  2. 2 Whether the injunction and freezing injunction should be set aside for material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the injunction and freezing injunction should be continued pending trial

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's failure to disclose the criminal charges against a key witness was a breach of duty but not a grave one; the other alleged non-disclosures were not material. The claimant has a good arguable case in fraud and trust, and the balance of convenience supports continuation of the injunctions, subject to variations to protect the interests of all creditors.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside injunctions dismissed; injunction and freezing injunction continued until trial or further order, subject to variations.

Orders

  • Dismissal of second and third defendants' application to set aside injunctions for material non-disclosure
  • Continuation of injunction and freezing injunction granted on 8 July 2014 (as varied and extended) until trial or further order, subject to variations to enable the Trustee in Bankruptcy to perform his duties