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 omission to disclose the status of a key witness (Mr Whale) was a breach of duty but not sufficiently grave to justify setting aside the injunctions. The other alleged non-disclosures were either not material or had been disclosed. The claimant established a good arguable case in fraud and trust, and the balance of convenience justified continuing the injunctions, subject to variations to protect the interests of all creditors in the insolvency context.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4329 (QB)
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 Fraud/trust Action / Application to Continue Injunction and Freezing Injunction; Application to Set Aside Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure
Outcome
Second and third defendants' application to set aside injunctions dismissed; claimant's application to continue injunctions granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Material Non Disclosure, Constructive Trusts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Bankruptcy and Liquidation, Adequacy of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Insolvency Equity and Trusts Fraud Freezing Injunctions Material Non Disclosure Constructive Trusts Fraudulent Misrepresentation +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 6 Authorities cited 15 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 Fraud/trust Action / Application to Continue Injunction and Freezing Injunction; Application to Set Aside Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed in its duty of full and fair disclosure on the original without notice application for injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the injunction and freezing injunction should be continued pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings adequately set out the case in fraud and trust

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's omission to disclose the status of a key witness (Mr Whale) was a breach of duty but not sufficiently grave to justify setting aside the injunctions. The other alleged non-disclosures were either not material or had been disclosed. The claimant established a good arguable case in fraud and trust, and the balance of convenience justified continuing the injunctions, subject to variations to protect the interests of all creditors in the insolvency context.

Court Disposition

Second and third defendants' application to set aside injunctions dismissed; claimant's application to continue injunctions granted.

Orders

  • Application to set aside injunction and freezing injunction dismissed.
  • Injunction and freezing injunction continued until trial or further order, subject to variations to protect insolvency officeholders.