Tarnjit Singh Gill & Anor v Jagjit Kaur & Anor

Tarnjit Singh Gill & Anor v Jagjit Kaur & Anor

The proprietary injunction is continued because the Claimants have demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding misappropriation of WPHL, damages would not be an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favours the Claimants, and it is expedient to grant relief given the ongoing Delaware proceedings and absence of jurisdictional conflict.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Tarnjit Singh Gill; Claimant/applicant: Jagjit Singh Gill; Defendant/respondent: Jagjit Kaur; Defendant/respondent: West Properties Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue Proprietary Injunction / Ruling on Continuation of Injunction
Outcome
Proprietary injunction continued; costs awarded to Claimants.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Injunction, Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Derivative Proceedings, Fiduciary Duties, Asset Misappropriation
Civil Procedure Injunctions International Litigation Proprietary Injunction Section 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Derivative Proceedings Fiduciary Duties Asset Misappropriation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarnjit Singh Gill

Claimant/applicant

Jagjit Singh Gill

Claimant/applicant

Jagjit Kaur

Defendant/respondent

West Properties Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Continue Proprietary Injunction / Ruling on Continuation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary injunction should be continued under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
  2. 2 Whether the facts warrant relief if substantive proceedings had been brought in England
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient to grant the relief sought given ongoing foreign proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The proprietary injunction is continued because the Claimants have demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding misappropriation of WPHL, damages would not be an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience favours the Claimants, and it is expedient to grant relief given the ongoing Delaware proceedings and absence of jurisdictional conflict.

Court Disposition

Proprietary injunction continued; costs awarded to Claimants.

Orders

  • Proprietary injunction extended until 31 July 2025.
  • Further hearing to be set shortly before expiry to consider continuation.