Blackmore v Richardson & Ors

Blackmore v Richardson & Ors

Permission to appeal granted on grounds relating to the effect of petitioner's forgery on quasi-partnership status and clean hands, and on the finding of exclusion from the company, as these raise arguable points of law and fact. Permission also granted on the inclusion of £60,000 in the order against Capital Cabs. Other grounds refused as findings of fact or discretionary matters within the judge's remit.

Parties
Petitioner/appellant: Blackmore; First Respondent: Richardson; Second Respondent: Wheeler; Third Respondent/appellant: Cummings; Fourth Respondent/appellant: Supatax 2000 Limited; Fifth Respondent/appellant: Capital Cabs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (leave to Appeal) From Judgment of HHJ Wyn Williams QC
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part, and one application adjourned.
Legal Topics
Section 459 Petition, Unfair Prejudice, Quasi Partnership, Clean Hands Doctrine, Shareholder Remedies, Costs Orders
Company Law Civil Procedure Section 459 Petition Unfair Prejudice Quasi Partnership Clean Hands Doctrine Shareholder Remedies Costs Orders

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

Parties

Blackmore

Petitioner/appellant

Richardson

First Respondent

Wheeler

Second Respondent

Cummings

Third Respondent/appellant

Supatax 2000 Limited

Fourth Respondent/appellant

Capital Cabs Limited

Fifth Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (leave to Appeal) From Judgment of HHJ Wyn Williams QC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dealings in shares constitute 'affairs of the company' under section 459
  2. 2 Effect of petitioner's forgery on quasi-partnership status and entitlement to relief
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of petitioner from company was properly found

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal granted on grounds relating to the effect of petitioner's forgery on quasi-partnership status and clean hands, and on the finding of exclusion from the company, as these raise arguable points of law and fact. Permission also granted on the inclusion of £60,000 in the order against Capital Cabs. Other grounds refused as findings of fact or discretionary matters within the judge's remit.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part, and one application adjourned.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on grounds (1)(c), (1)(d), (2) for first and second respondents.
  • Permission to appeal granted to Capital Cabs on inclusion of £60,000 in order.