Barnsley & Ors v Noble

Barnsley & Ors v Noble

The claimants have an arguable case regarding the interpretation of the exoneration clause and whether Philip Noble acted in good faith, warranting permission to appeal.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: John Corbitt Barnsley; Claimant/appellant: Gillian Elizabeth Noble; Claimant/appellant: LGL Trustees Limited; Claimant/appellant: LGL Nominees Limited; Defendant/respondent: Philip Noble
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Self Dealing, Exoneration Clause, Good Faith, Fiduciary Duty, Disclosure, Equitable Compensation, Account of Profits
Trusts Equity Contract Breach of Trust Self Dealing Exoneration Clause Good Faith Fiduciary Duty +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Corbitt Barnsley

Claimant/appellant

Gillian Elizabeth Noble

Claimant/appellant

LGL Trustees Limited

Claimant/appellant

LGL Nominees Limited

Claimant/appellant

Philip Noble

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exoneration clause protects Philip Noble from liability for breach of trust in the demerger transaction
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'wilful and individual fraud or wrongdoing' in the exoneration clause
  3. 3 Whether Philip Noble acted in good faith

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have an arguable case regarding the interpretation of the exoneration clause and whether Philip Noble acted in good faith, warranting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to claimants on grounds summarised.
  • Philip Noble is not precluded from advancing arguments set out in his written submissions at the full hearing.