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's finding that the Defendant's defence was so weak as to be improbable of success justified a conditional order, but the quantum and form of the order failed to account for the Defendant's Clause 17 arguments and financial situation; the conditional order was upheld but the amount reduced and the form modified to allow payment by shares in escrow, later to be replaced by cash.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 76 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jordan Grand Prix Limited; Appellant/defendant: Tiger Telematics Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Master's Conditional Order Following Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conditional order upheld but quantum and form varied
Legal Topics
Sponsorship Agreements, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Conditional Orders, Repudiation of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Sponsorship Agreements Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Conditional Orders 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Grand Prix Limited

Claimant/respondent

Tiger Telematics Inc

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Conditional Order Following Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master's conditional order requiring payment into court was appropriate given the strength of the defence
  2. 2 Whether the defence of misrepresentation had real prospects of success or was so weak as to justify a conditional order
  3. 3 Whether Clause 17 of the agreement precluded the sums claimed or affected the quantum of the conditional order

Ratio Decidendi

The Master's finding that the Defendant's defence was so weak as to be improbable of success justified a conditional order, but the quantum and form of the order failed to account for the Defendant's Clause 17 arguments and financial situation; the conditional order was upheld but the amount reduced and the form modified to allow payment by shares in escrow, later to be replaced by cash.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conditional order upheld but quantum and form varied

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 one week before trial, with shares to be returned upon payment