Franbar Holdings Ltd v Casualty Plus Ltd

Franbar Holdings Ltd v Casualty Plus Ltd

The defendant’s arguments against the finality and binding nature of the IA’s determination do not have a real prospect of success for the purposes of summary judgment. However, as there are unresolved issues of construction and the defendant’s arguments, while weak, are not fanciful, summary judgment is not granted outright. Instead, a conditional order is appropriate, requiring the defendant to pay a sum into court as a condition of defending the claim.

Parties
Claimant: Franbar Holdings Limited; Defendant: Casualty Plus Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (shareholder Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application Following Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Conditional order for payment into court as a condition of defending; summary judgment not granted outright; further submissions invited on quantum and election of remedies.
Legal Topics
Shareholder Agreements, Expert Determination, Option Price Calculation, Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contracts
Company Law Contract Law Shareholder Agreements Expert Determination Option Price Calculation Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franbar Holdings Limited

Claimant

Casualty Plus Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (shareholder Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application Following Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert determination of the Independent Accountant (IA) is final and binding under the Shareholders’ Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the IA acted within the scope of his authority under the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether there was manifest error in the IA’s determination

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant’s arguments against the finality and binding nature of the IA’s determination do not have a real prospect of success for the purposes of summary judgment. However, as there are unresolved issues of construction and the defendant’s arguments, while weak, are not fanciful, summary judgment is not granted outright. Instead, a conditional order is appropriate, requiring the defendant to pay a sum into court as a condition of defending the claim.

Court Disposition

Conditional order for payment into court as a condition of defending; summary judgment not granted outright; further submissions invited on quantum and election of remedies.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay a sum into court as a condition of pursuing its defence (quantum to be determined after further submissions).
  • Further argument to be heard on whether the claimant must elect as to remedies and whether the third preliminary issue should still be tried.