Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entiwicklungsgesellschaft MBG v Koshy & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 484 (11 March 2002)

Deg-Deutsche Investitions-Und Entiwicklungsgesellschaft MBG v Koshy & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 484 (11 March 2002)

Permission to appeal granted on the ground that section 32 Limitation Act 1980 may postpone limitation if DEG could not have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence; findings of fact regarding repatriation of funds and knowledge of fraud are central. Permission to appeal also granted on costs issues where director may be liable for costs even if no profit found after account.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 484
Parties
Claimant/appellant: DEG-Deutsche Investitions-und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBG; Defendant/respondent: Thomas Koshy; Defendant/respondent: Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited (in liquidation); Defendant/respondent: Warrant Trustees Limited sued as the Trustees of Palms Trust; Defendant/respondent: Haze Securities Limited; Defendant/respondent: Centel Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hi-Pro Holdings Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hi-Pro (UK) Limited (in liquidation); Defendant/respondent: Hi-Pro Limited; Claimant/appellant: Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Directions on Pending Appeals
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused in 2661 and allowed in 0090 and 0094 on limited grounds; costs of each application to be costs in that appeal; application in 0091 adjourned to hearing of 0094; GVDC allowed to amend notice of appeal; respondents' notices to be filed by 9 April 2002.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Fraud, Freezing Orders, Costs, Account of Profits, Equitable Compensation
Commercial Law Equity Civil Procedure Limitation Period Fraud Freezing Orders Costs Account of Profits +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEG-Deutsche Investitions-und Entwicklungsgesellschaft MBG

Claimant/appellant

Thomas Koshy

Defendant/respondent

Lummus Agricultural Services Company Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant/respondent

Warrant Trustees Limited sued as the Trustees of Palms Trust

Defendant/respondent

Haze Securities Limited

Defendant/respondent

Centel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hi-Pro Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hi-Pro (UK) Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant/respondent

Hi-Pro Limited

Defendant/respondent

Gwembe Valley Development Company Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Directions on Pending Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation bars DEG's claim in deceit
  2. 2 Whether section 32 Limitation Act 1980 applies to postpone limitation
  3. 3 Whether costs orders should be disturbed due to alleged fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal granted on the ground that section 32 Limitation Act 1980 may postpone limitation if DEG could not have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence; findings of fact regarding repatriation of funds and knowledge of fraud are central. Permission to appeal also granted on costs issues where director may be liable for costs even if no profit found after account.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused in 2661 and allowed in 0090 and 0094 on limited grounds; costs of each application to be costs in that appeal; application in 0091 adjourned to hearing of 0094; GVDC allowed to amend notice of appeal; respondents' notices to be filed by 9 April 2002.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused in 2661.
  • Permission to appeal allowed in 0090 and 0094 on limited grounds.