Jackson & Anor v Feeney

Jackson & Anor v Feeney

Given Eupay's persistent refusal to comply with disclosure and costs orders, and the need for transparency in the distribution of a shortfall fund subject to competing proprietary claims, an 'unless' order is justified. However, to protect Guy Enterprises' confidentiality interests, the order is suspended if Guy Enterprises promptly applies to vary/discharge the disclosure order with supporting evidence and redactions.

Parties
Applicant: Alea Transactions Limited; Respondent: Eupay Group Limited; Interested Party/objector: Guy Enterprises Limited; Claimant: Philip Jackson; Claimant: Stephen Mann; Defendant: David Feeney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery, Business List) / Interlocutory Application for 'unless' Order and Enforcement of Disclosure/costs Orders
Outcome
'Unless' order granted against Eupay, with suspension mechanism for Guy Enterprises' confidentiality application.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Proprietary Claims, Interlocutory Relief, Consent Orders, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Banking and Financial Services Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Proprietary Claims Interlocutory Relief Consent 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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alea Transactions Limited

Applicant

Eupay Group Limited

Respondent

Guy Enterprises Limited

Interested Party/objector

Philip Jackson

Claimant

Stephen Mann

Claimant

David Feeney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery, Business List) / Interlocutory Application for 'unless' Order and Enforcement of Disclosure/costs Orders

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 in evidence
  3. 3 Whether Alea is entitled to enforcement of disclosure to police the frozen fund

Ratio Decidendi

Given Eupay's persistent refusal to comply with disclosure and costs orders, and the need for transparency in the distribution of a shortfall fund subject to competing proprietary claims, an 'unless' order is justified. However, to protect Guy Enterprises' confidentiality interests, the order is suspended if Guy Enterprises promptly applies to vary/discharge the disclosure order with supporting evidence and redactions.

Court Disposition

'Unless' order granted against Eupay, with suspension mechanism for Guy Enterprises' confidentiality application.

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.
  • The time limit for service of the Guy Enterprises evidence is suspended if Guy Enterprises applies by 4 p.m. on 11 June 2018 to vary/discharge the order, providing redacted evidence and confidentiality statements.