Saatchi v Gajjar & Anor

Saatchi v Gajjar & Anor

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claims against Mr Gajjar have more than a prima facie case, are not speculative, and a director acting in accordance with section 172 would attach importance to pursuing them. Alternative remedies do not bar the claim in these circumstances, and the claims are properly brought as a derivative action for the benefit of the company.

Parties
Applicant: Charles Nathan Saatchi; First Respondent: Rahul Chandrakant Gajjar; Second Respondent: Triptych Logistics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim (company Law) / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim
Outcome
Permission to continue derivative claim granted
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Directors' Duties, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Statutory Duties Under Companies Act, Alternative Remedies in Shareholder Disputes
Company Law Insolvency Law Derivative Actions Directors' Duties Breach of Fiduciary Duty Statutory Duties Under Companies Act Alternative Remedies in Shareholder Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Nathan Saatchi

Applicant

Rahul Chandrakant Gajjar

First Respondent

Triptych Logistics Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim (company Law) / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue a derivative claim under section 261 of the Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the director (Mr Gajjar) have sufficient merit to proceed
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies (unfair prejudice petition, winding up) bar the derivative claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claims against Mr Gajjar have more than a prima facie case, are not speculative, and a director acting in accordance with section 172 would attach importance to pursuing them. Alternative remedies do not bar the claim in these circumstances, and the claims are properly brought as a derivative action for the benefit of the company.

Court Disposition

Permission to continue derivative claim granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to continue the derivative claim under section 261 of the Companies Act 2006
  • Court to hear counsel on the terms of the order at hand down