Prinse v Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 281 (Ch) (23 January 2020)

Prinse v Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 281 (Ch) (23 January 2020)

The defendants failed to establish any common mistake or outward expression of accord justifying rectification of the consent order. There was no basis for variation under CPR 3.1(7). The payments of £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited were in breach of the consent order. The court exercised its discretion to admit the bank statements as evidence, given the public interest in enforcing court orders. The third and fourth defendants were ordered to procure repayment of the £25,000 to the second defendant company.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 281 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Prinse; First Defendant: Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd; Second Defendant: Landmasters Developments Ltd; Third Defendant: George Nicolaides; Fourth Defendant: Christopher Nicolaides; Fifth Defendant: Christopher Takis Christoforou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Applications in Company Proceedings / Hearing of Applications to Enforce and Vary/rectify Consent Order
Outcome
Claimant's application granted; Defendants' cross-application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Consent Orders, Variation of Interim Orders, Breach of Court Orders, Admissibility of Evidence, Family Company Disputes
Company Law Civil Procedure Rectification of Consent Orders Variation of Interim Orders Breach of Court Orders Admissibility of Evidence Family Company Disputes

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Prinse

Claimant

Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd

First Defendant

Landmasters Developments Ltd

Second Defendant

George Nicolaides

Third Defendant

Christopher Nicolaides

Fourth Defendant

Christopher Takis Christoforou

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Applications in Company Proceedings / Hearing of Applications to Enforce and Vary/rectify Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order should be rectified or varied to permit payments to entities owned or controlled by the third or fourth defendants
  2. 2 Whether the third and fourth defendants breached the consent order by causing payment of £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited
  3. 3 Whether the court should order repayment of sums paid in breach of the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish any common mistake or outward expression of accord justifying rectification of the consent order. There was no basis for variation under CPR 3.1(7). The payments of £25,000 to Luxury Collections (UK) Limited were in breach of the consent order. The court exercised its discretion to admit the bank statements as evidence, given the public interest in enforcing court orders. The third and fourth defendants were ordered to procure repayment of the £25,000 to the second defendant company.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application granted; Defendants' cross-application dismissed

Orders

  • Third and fourth defendants to procure repayment of £25,000 to the second defendant company
  • Bank statements admitted as evidence for the purposes of this application