Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company v James David Hadley & Anor.

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company v James David Hadley & Anor.

The court found that the principal defendants (including Mr Hadley, Mr Chapman-Clark, Mr Lloyd, Pinnacle, and others) engaged in an unlawful means conspiracy to injure the claimant by orchestrating and executing conflicted, uncommercial investments, breaching fiduciary duties, paying and receiving bribes, and misapplying pension investors’ funds. The court held that the claimant was entitled to equitable compensation, damages, rescission, and restitution against the principal conspirators and those vicariously liable for bribery. Certain defendants (notably Mr Jones, Titan, and Mr Wright) were found not liable for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, or unconscionable receipt due to lack of...

Parties
Claimant: Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation); First Defendant: James David Hadley; Second Defendant: Thomas William Gordon Biggar; Third Defendant: Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark; Fourth Defendant: Andrew Christopher Jones; Fifth Defendant: Titan Capital Partners Limited; Sixth Defendant: CGrowth Capital Bond Limited; Seventh Defendant: William Macfarland Wright III; Eighth Defendant: Pinnacle Brokers Limited (In Liquidation); Ninth Defendant: Mark Lloyd; Tenth Defendant: Vivere Forti International Foundation; Eleventh Defendant: Kirsty Louise Platt; Twelfth Defendant: Platinum Pyramid Limited (In Liquidation); Thirteenth Defendant: Bentley Jarrard Thwaite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Bribery) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against principal defendants for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, bribery, dishonest assistance, and unconscionable receipt; claims against certain defendants (Mr Jones, Titan, Mr Wright) dismissed; quantum and precise remedies to be determined at a further hearing.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Unconscionable Receipt, Bribery, Vicarious Liability, Financial Promotion Offences, General Prohibition Under FSMA, Rescission, Restitution
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Company Law Financial Services Regulation Tort Unlawful Means Conspiracy Breach of Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance +7 more

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 7 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

James David Hadley

First Defendant

Thomas William Gordon Biggar

Second Defendant

Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark

Third Defendant

Andrew Christopher Jones

Fourth Defendant

Titan Capital Partners Limited

Fifth Defendant

CGrowth Capital Bond Limited

Sixth Defendant

William Macfarland Wright III

Seventh Defendant

Pinnacle Brokers Limited (In Liquidation)

Eighth Defendant

Mark Lloyd

Ninth Defendant

Vivere Forti International Foundation

Tenth Defendant

Kirsty Louise Platt

Eleventh Defendant

Platinum Pyramid Limited (In Liquidation)

Twelfth Defendant

Bentley Jarrard Thwaite

Thirteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Bribery) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants engaged in unlawful means conspiracy to injure the claimant
  2. 2 Whether there were breaches of fiduciary duty by investment managers and others
  3. 3 Whether certain defendants dishonestly assisted or unconscionably received trust property

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the principal defendants (including Mr Hadley, Mr Chapman-Clark, Mr Lloyd, Pinnacle, and others) engaged in an unlawful means conspiracy to injure the claimant by orchestrating and executing conflicted, uncommercial investments, breaching fiduciary duties, paying and receiving bribes, and misapplying pension investors’ funds. The court held that the claimant was entitled to equitable compensation, damages, rescission, and restitution against the principal conspirators and those vicariously liable for bribery. Certain defendants (notably Mr Jones, Titan, and Mr Wright) were found not liable for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, or unconscionable receipt due to lack of...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against principal defendants for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, bribery, dishonest assistance, and unconscionable receipt; claims against certain defendants (Mr Jones, Titan, Mr Wright) dismissed; quantum and precise remedies to be determined at a further hearing.

Orders

  • Declaration that CGrowth bond purchase contracts are void and restitution of £5,460,000.90 to the claimant
  • Equitable compensation and/or damages against Mr Hadley, Mr Chapman-Clark, Mr Lloyd, Pinnacle, PPL, Mr Thwaite, and CGrowth for losses arising from the impugned transactions