Jackson & Anor v Feeney [2018] EWHC 1490 (Ch) (04 June 2018)

Jackson & Anor v Feeney [2018] EWHC 1490 (Ch) (04 June 2018)

Given the persistent non-compliance by Eupay and the need for transparency in the distribution of a shortfall fund subject to proprietary claims, an unless order is justified to compel disclosure and payment of costs, with safeguards for Guy Enterprises to protect confidential information via a redacted disclosure and supporting witness statements.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1490 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Philip Jackson; Claimant: Stephen Mann; Defendant: David Feeney; Applicant: Alea Transactions Limited; Respondent: Eupay Group Limited; Interested Party: Guy Enterprises Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial/chancery / Interlocutory Application for Unless Order and Related Relief
Outcome
Unless order granted against Eupay, with suspension mechanism for Guy Enterprises to apply for variation/discharge to protect confidentiality.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Proprietary Claims, Disclosure Obligations, Unless Orders, Costs Orders, Confidentiality in Evidence
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Proprietary Claims Disclosure Obligations Unless Orders Costs Orders +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Jackson

Claimant

Stephen Mann

Claimant

David Feeney

Defendant

Alea Transactions Limited

Applicant

Eupay Group Limited

Respondent

Guy Enterprises Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial/chancery / Interlocutory Application for Unless Order and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unless order should be made against Eupay for non-compliance with disclosure and costs orders
  2. 2 Whether Guy Enterprises is entitled to an adjournment to protect confidential information
  3. 3 Whether Alea is entitled to police the frozen fund pending determination of its proprietary claim

Ratio Decidendi

Given the persistent non-compliance by Eupay and the need for transparency in the distribution of a shortfall fund subject to proprietary claims, an unless order is justified to compel disclosure and payment of costs, with safeguards for Guy Enterprises to protect confidential information via a redacted disclosure and supporting witness statements.

Court Disposition

Unless order granted against Eupay, with suspension mechanism for Guy Enterprises to apply for variation/discharge to protect confidentiality.

Orders

  • Unless by 12 June 2018 Eupay complies with paragraphs 3 and 7 of Birss J's order of 14 May 2018, its Points of Defence dated 12 July 2017 stand dismissed.
  • Time for service of Guy Enterprises' evidence suspended if Guy Enterprises applies by 4 p.m. on 11 June 2018 to vary/discharge paragraph 3 of Birss J's order, with redacted evidence and supporting witness statements.