Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Cushnie & Ors

Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Cushnie & Ors

The evidence provided by Mr Cushnie was insufficiently detailed and speculative to establish a real risk of loss requiring fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages, and the application for security for costs was premature and appeared tactically motivated, with no evidence that it would stifle the claim or that Sinclair could not raise security from its backers.

Parties
Claimant: Sinclair Investment Holdings SA; First Defendant: Carlton Ellington Cushnie; Second Defendant: SCI Sacaleca; Third Defendant: Guillaume Leong-Son; Fourth Defendant: Marrlist Limited; Fifth Defendant: Assets International Management Limited; Sixth Defendant: Asset Nominees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications—fortification of Cross Undertaking and Security for Costs
Outcome
Both applications refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Security for Costs, Fiduciary Duties, Knowing Receipt, Knowing Assistance, Conspiracy
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Freezing Orders Cross Undertaking in Damages Security for Costs Fiduciary Duties Knowing Receipt Knowing Assistance +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinclair Investment Holdings SA

Claimant

Carlton Ellington Cushnie

First Defendant

SCI Sacaleca

Second Defendant

Guillaume Leong-Son

Third Defendant

Marrlist Limited

Fourth Defendant

Assets International Management Limited

Fifth Defendant

Asset Nominees Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications—fortification of Cross Undertaking and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-undertaking in damages should be fortified
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence provided by Mr Cushnie was insufficiently detailed and speculative to establish a real risk of loss requiring fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages, and the application for security for costs was premature and appeared tactically motivated, with no evidence that it would stifle the claim or that Sinclair could not raise security from its backers.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused.

Orders

  • Application for fortification of cross-undertaking in damages refused.
  • Application for security for costs refused.