Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors v Curtis & Anor

Dyson Technology Ltd & Ors v Curtis & Anor

The First Defendant breached fiduciary and contractual duties by receiving bribes and causing overpayments to suppliers. The Second Defendant was a knowing recipient and dishonest assistant, as her state of knowledge and conduct made it unconscionable for her to retain the benefit of the monies received. The Claimants are entitled to personal and proprietary remedies, including tracing and compound interest, against both Defendants for the sums identified.

Parties
Claimant: Dyson Technology Limited; Claimant: Dyson Limited; Claimant: Dyson Research Limited; Claimant: Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bdn; First Defendant: Keith Curtis; Second Defendant: Diane Margaret Curtis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery, England & Wales) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants against both Defendants.
Legal Topics
Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Trust, Tracing, Bribery, Personal and Proprietary Claims
Equity and Trusts Employment Law Company Law Knowing Receipt Dishonest Assistance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Constructive Trust Tracing +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Claimant

Dyson Limited

Claimant

Dyson Research Limited

Claimant

Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bdn

Claimant

Keith Curtis

First Defendant

Diane Margaret Curtis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery, England & Wales) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant breached fiduciary and contractual duties by receiving bribes and causing overpayments to suppliers.
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant was a knowing recipient and/or dishonest assistant in respect of monies received into accounts controlled by her.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants are entitled to personal and proprietary remedies against the Defendants, including tracing and interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant breached fiduciary and contractual duties by receiving bribes and causing overpayments to suppliers. The Second Defendant was a knowing recipient and dishonest assistant, as her state of knowledge and conduct made it unconscionable for her to retain the benefit of the monies received. The Claimants are entitled to personal and proprietary remedies, including tracing and compound interest, against both Defendants for the sums identified.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants against both Defendants.

Orders

  • First Defendant liable for £615,903.55 (Lismolde monies) and £4.7 million (Far Eastern overpayments), with compound interest on the former and simple interest on the latter.
  • Second Defendant liable as knowing recipient and dishonest assistant for £1,499,845.55, with compound interest.