Norris & Ors v Dooley [2021] EWHC 3656 (Ch) (02 December 2021)

Norris & Ors v Dooley [2021] EWHC 3656 (Ch) (02 December 2021)

The trial judge's evaluative decisions on valuation, payment period, and costs were within his discretion and no arguable error of law or approach was shown; permission to appeal is refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3656 (Ch)
Parties
Intended Appellant: Anthony Carlello Norris; Intended Appellant: Oaksmore Portfolios AIFM Limited; Intended Appellant: Gallium Funds Solutions Group Limited; Proposed Respondent: Peter Dooley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice Petition, Valuation of Shares, Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal
Company Law Insolvency Unfair Prejudice Petition Valuation of Shares Costs Orders Permission to Appeal

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Anthony Carlello Norris

Intended Appellant

Oaksmore Portfolios AIFM Limited

Intended Appellant

Gallium Funds Solutions Group Limited

Intended Appellant

Peter Dooley

Proposed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in approach to valuation evidence under section 994 Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the time allowed for payment was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the costs order was within judicial discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's evaluative decisions on valuation, payment period, and costs were within his discretion and no arguable error of law or approach was shown; permission to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal refused
  • Order of Fancourt J affirmed