St Vincent European General Partner Ltd v Robinson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 3267 (Comm) (15 December 2017)

St Vincent European General Partner Ltd v Robinson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 3267 (Comm) (15 December 2017)

St Vincent failed to establish a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order because its claims either failed on the facts or were barred by the reflective loss principle. There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, and the application for the injunction was made too late and was disproportionate. Material non-disclosure by St Vincent in the without notice application also justified setting aside the WFO.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3267 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: St Vincent European General Partner Limited; First Defendant: Bruce Robinson; Second Defendant: Winterbourne PTE Limited; Third Defendant: PPL Winterbourne Limited; Fourth Defendant: Polad Limited; Fifth Defendant: Molyneaux Investments; Sixth Defendant: Thistle Aviation Limited; Seventh Defendant: Jenifer Copeland; Eighth Defendant: Stephen Copeland; Ninth Defendant: James Hoseason; Tenth Defendant: David Toms; Eleventh Defendant: Alastair Nicholson (deceased, through the administrator of his estate, Alastair David John Nicholson Jr)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Injunction, Breach of Contract, Asset Recovery) / Judgment on Applications to Continue Worldwide Freezing Order, Set Aside Freezing Order, and for Cross Examination
Outcome
Applications by St Vincent for continuation of the worldwide freezing order and for cross-examination refused; application by Mr Robinson and PPL to set aside the WFO granted.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Reflective Loss, Share Pledge Enforcement, Material Non Disclosure, Derivative Actions, Breach of Contract, Asset Dissipation, Constructive Trust
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Company Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Reflective Loss Share Pledge Enforcement Material Non Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Vincent European General Partner Limited

Claimant

Bruce Robinson

First Defendant

Winterbourne PTE Limited

Second Defendant

PPL Winterbourne Limited

Third Defendant

Polad Limited

Fourth Defendant

Molyneaux Investments

Fifth Defendant

Thistle Aviation Limited

Sixth Defendant

Jenifer Copeland

Seventh Defendant

Stephen Copeland

Eighth Defendant

James Hoseason

Ninth Defendant

David Toms

Tenth Defendant

Alastair Nicholson (deceased, through the administrator of his estate, Alastair David John Nicholson Jr)

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Injunction, Breach of Contract, Asset Recovery) / Judgment on Applications to Continue Worldwide Freezing Order, Set Aside Freezing Order, and for Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a good arguable case for continuation of the worldwide freezing order (WFO)
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claim is barred by the reflective loss principle

Ratio Decidendi

St Vincent failed to establish a good arguable case for continuation of the freezing order because its claims either failed on the facts or were barred by the reflective loss principle. There was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, and the application for the injunction was made too late and was disproportionate. Material non-disclosure by St Vincent in the without notice application also justified setting aside the WFO.

Court Disposition

Applications by St Vincent for continuation of the worldwide freezing order and for cross-examination refused; application by Mr Robinson and PPL to set aside the WFO granted.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order discharged
  • Application for cross-examination refused