Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Tiger Telematics Inc Rev 1

Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v Tiger Telematics Inc Rev 1

The Master was entitled to make a conditional order as the defence of misrepresentation was so weak as to be improbable to succeed, but not so weak as to justify summary judgment; however, the Master erred in not considering the Clause 17 argument and the Defendant's financial situation, warranting a reduction in the quantum of the conditional order.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jordan Grand Prix Limited; Appellant/defendant: Tiger Telematics Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Conditional Order on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conditional order upheld but quantum reduced
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conditional Orders, Misrepresentation, Sponsorship Agreements, Repudiation of Contract
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Conditional Orders Misrepresentation Sponsorship Agreements 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 8 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Conditional Order on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in making a conditional order requiring payment into court as a condition for defending the claim
  2. 2 Whether the defence of misrepresentation had sufficient merit to avoid a conditional order
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of the conditional order was appropriate given the contractual and financial circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to make a conditional order as the defence of misrepresentation was so weak as to be improbable to succeed, but not so weak as to justify summary judgment; however, the Master erred in not considering the Clause 17 argument and the Defendant's financial situation, warranting a reduction in the quantum of the conditional order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; conditional order upheld but quantum reduced

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