Sports Network Ltd v Calzaghe

Sports Network Ltd v Calzaghe

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the profits from the Hopkins fight are held on trust for the defendant. The claimant has failed to comply with disclosure and information orders, and the balance of convenience favors an order for payment into court. The claimant's breaches justify an unless order and indemnity costs for the relevant hearings.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sports Network Limited; Defendant/applicant: Joe Calzaghe CBE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application and Ruling on Interim Remedies and Compliance With Court Orders
Outcome
Application allowed in part; unless order granted; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
Interim Remedies, Constructive Trust, Preservation of Assets, Disclosure Obligations, Unless Orders, Costs (indemnity and Standard Basis)
Civil Procedure Contract Law Trusts Law Interim Remedies Constructive Trust Preservation of Assets Disclosure Obligations Unless Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sports Network Limited

Claimant/respondent

Joe Calzaghe CBE

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application and Ruling on Interim Remedies and Compliance With Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to an interim order for payment into court of funds allegedly held on trust by the claimant under CPR 25.1(1)(l)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is in breach of disclosure and information orders under CPR 25.1(1)(g)
  3. 3 Whether an unless order should be issued for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the profits from the Hopkins fight are held on trust for the defendant. The claimant has failed to comply with disclosure and information orders, and the balance of convenience favors an order for payment into court. The claimant's breaches justify an unless order and indemnity costs for the relevant hearings.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; unless order granted; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • Unless the claimant complies with the order of 14th October 2008 within a specified period, judgment will be entered on the counterclaim for an account and the claimant must pay $2.9 million into court.
  • The claimant must pay the costs of the hearings before Eady J. and Mr. Justice Coulson, with costs of 14th and 21st October hearings on the indemnity basis and earlier hearings on the standard basis.