Kevin Geoffrey Dodson & Anor v Christopher Richard Shield & Ors

Kevin Geoffrey Dodson & Anor v Christopher Richard Shield & Ors

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the four grounds advanced have a reasonable prospect of success, being either matters of fact or issues already properly addressed in law. The appropriate valuation date is 28 April 2015, when the unfair prejudice crystallised. No discount should be applied to the valuation as this is a quasi-partnership case. Proceedings at first instance are stayed pending the outcome of any appeal, given the short expected delay and risk of wasted expert work.

Parties
Petitioner: Kevin Geoffrey Dodson; Petitioner: Murry Dodson; Respondent: Christopher Richard Shield; Respondent: Charles Cattaneo; Respondent: David Keith Cotterill; Respondent: Alan David Cotterill; Respondent: Neil John Collins; Respondent: Nicholas Harman Coulborn; Respondent: John William Rock; Respondent: International Automotive Engineering Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Company Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Case Management
Outcome
permission to appeal refused; stay of proceedings granted pending appeal
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Quasi Partnership, Valuation of Shares, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Stay of Proceedings
Company Law Equity Unfair Prejudice Quasi Partnership Valuation of Shares Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stay of Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Geoffrey Dodson

Petitioner

Murry Dodson

Petitioner

Christopher Richard Shield

Respondent

Charles Cattaneo

Respondent

David Keith Cotterill

Respondent

Alan David Cotterill

Respondent

Neil John Collins

Respondent

Nicholas Harman Coulborn

Respondent

John William Rock

Respondent

International Automotive Engineering Projects Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Related Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted on four grounds relating to findings of quasi-partnership, diversion of project, breach of fiduciary duty, and valuation issues
  2. 2 Whether proceedings at first instance should be stayed pending appeal
  3. 3 What is the appropriate valuation date for the shares

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because none of the four grounds advanced have a reasonable prospect of success, being either matters of fact or issues already properly addressed in law. The appropriate valuation date is 28 April 2015, when the unfair prejudice crystallised. No discount should be applied to the valuation as this is a quasi-partnership case. Proceedings at first instance are stayed pending the outcome of any appeal, given the short expected delay and risk of wasted expert work.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused; stay of proceedings granted pending appeal

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused on all four grounds.
  • Proceedings at first instance are stayed pending the outcome of any appeal.