Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1587 (04 December 2012)

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 1587 (04 December 2012)

Permission to appeal was granted only on limited grounds where the court could not say there was no prospect of success, particularly regarding certain conditions precedent to partnership, aspects of the Quistclose trust, and some FSMA and fiduciary duty claims. Permission was refused on fraud, dishonest assistance, and most other grounds as the judge's findings were upheld.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1587
Parties
Applicants: Andrew Brown & Others; Respondents: InnovatorOne PLC & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Quistclose Trusts, Breach of Trust, Collective Investment Schemes, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance
Commercial Law Trusts Law Financial Services Law Quistclose Trusts Breach of Trust Collective Investment Schemes Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Negligence +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown & Others

Applicants

InnovatorOne PLC & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Collyer Bristow was trustee or had notice of Quistclose trust terms
  2. 2 Whether subscription monies could be used before investors became partners
  3. 3 Whether investors became partners

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted only on limited grounds where the court could not say there was no prospect of success, particularly regarding certain conditions precedent to partnership, aspects of the Quistclose trust, and some FSMA and fiduciary duty claims. Permission was refused on fraud, dishonest assistance, and most other grounds as the judge's findings were upheld.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on specified grounds as detailed in the judgment.
  • Permission to appeal refused on all other grounds.