Grant v Bragg [2009] EWHC 74 (Ch) (22 January 2009)

Grant v Bragg [2009] EWHC 74 (Ch) (22 January 2009)

No binding contract for the sale of Mr Grant's shares to Mr Bragg was concluded prior to the execution of a formal agreement; the parties' correspondence and conduct indicated that they did not intend to be legally bound until the formal document was signed. The triggering of the Shareholders' Agreement provisions did not itself create a contract for sale. The counterclaim for breach of the Shareholders' Agreement failed on the facts.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 74 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Graeme Grant; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Russell Bragg; Part 20 Claimant: Premier Resorts Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Claim and Part 20 Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Shareholder Agreements, Contract Formation, Director Duties, Company Share Sales, Fiduciary Duties
Contract Law Company Law Shareholder Agreements Contract Formation Director Duties Company Share Sales Fiduciary Duties

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graeme Grant

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Russell Bragg

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Premier Resorts Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Claim and Part 20 Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was concluded for the sale of Mr Grant's shares to Mr Bragg
  2. 2 Whether Mr Grant breached the Shareholders' Agreement
  3. 3 Whether Mr Grant breached fiduciary duties as director

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract for the sale of Mr Grant's shares to Mr Bragg was concluded prior to the execution of a formal agreement; the parties' correspondence and conduct indicated that they did not intend to be legally bound until the formal document was signed. The triggering of the Shareholders' Agreement provisions did not itself create a contract for sale. The counterclaim for breach of the Shareholders' Agreement failed on the facts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Grant's claim for enforcement of the alleged share sale contract is dismissed.
  • Mr Bragg's counterclaim for breach of the Shareholders' Agreement is dismissed.