Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors

Permission to appeal was granted in part on certain grounds where arguable errors of law or fact were identified, particularly regarding the existence and breach of Quistclose trusts, partnership status of investors, and certain FSMA and fiduciary duty claims; permission was refused on fraud, conspiracy, and other grounds found unarguable or not pursued.

Parties
Applicants: Andrew Brown & Others; Respondents: Innovatorone PLC & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part and refused in part; directions given for reformulation of grounds and skeleton arguments.
Legal Topics
Quistclose Trusts, Collective Investment Schemes, Breach of Trust, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (fsma), Negligence, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Trust Law Financial Services Law Partnership Law Negligence Fiduciary Duty Quistclose Trusts Collective Investment Schemes Breach of Trust +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown & Others

Applicants

Innovatorone PLC & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil 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 subscriptions could be used for partnership purposes before investor became partner
  3. 3 Whether investors became partners

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted in part on certain grounds where arguable errors of law or fact were identified, particularly regarding the existence and breach of Quistclose trusts, partnership status of investors, and certain FSMA and fiduciary duty claims; permission was refused on fraud, conspiracy, and other grounds found unarguable or not pursued.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part and refused in part; directions given for reformulation of grounds and skeleton arguments.

Orders

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