Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Tiger Telematics Inc Rev 1 [2005] EWHC 76 (QB) (28 January 2005)

Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Tiger Telematics Inc Rev 1 [2005] EWHC 76 (QB) (28 January 2005)

The Master was entitled to make a conditional order for payment into court because the defence of misrepresentation, while possible, was so weak as to be improbable of success; however, the quantum of the order failed to adequately consider the defendant's contractual arguments and financial situation, warranting a reduction and modification of the order.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 76
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jordan Grand Prix Limited; Appellant/defendant: Tiger Telematics Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Conditional Order for Payment Into Court Following Refusal of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conditional order for payment into court upheld but quantum reduced and terms modified.
Legal Topics
Sponsorship Agreements, Misrepresentation, Conditional Orders, Summary Judgment, Repudiation of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Sponsorship Agreements Misrepresentation Conditional Orders Summary Judgment Repudiation of Contract

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Grand Prix Limited

Claimant/respondent

Tiger Telematics Inc

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Conditional Order for Payment Into Court Following Refusal of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in making a conditional order for payment into court after refusing summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the defence of misrepresentation was sufficiently strong to avoid a conditional order
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of the conditional order was appropriate given the contractual terms and the defendant's financial situation

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to make a conditional order for payment into court because the defence of misrepresentation, while possible, was so weak as to be improbable of success; however, the quantum of the order failed to adequately consider the defendant's contractual arguments and financial situation, warranting a reduction and modification of the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conditional order for payment into court upheld but quantum reduced and terms modified.

Orders

  • Defendant to place shares in escrow to the value of US $1.5 million by 15 February 2005.
  • Defendant to pay US $1.5 million into court by one week before trial in April 2005 or such later date as set.