Jefferson & Ors v Bailey [2012] EWCA Civ 328 (16 March 2012)

Jefferson & Ors v Bailey [2012] EWCA Civ 328 (16 March 2012)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Mr Bailey over Mr Jefferson, found Mr Jefferson to be an unreliable and dishonest witness, and there was no sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claims of misappropriation or entitlement to the disputed sums.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 328
Parties
Appellant: Clive Jefferson; Appellant: Robert Brown; Appellant: John Cantle; Appellant: Bruno Longo; Respondent: Richard Bailey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Trust, Fraudulent Concealment, Shareholder Disputes, Tracing of Funds
Civil Fraud Equity and Trusts Company Law Misrepresentation Breach of Trust Fraudulent Concealment Shareholder Disputes Tracing of Funds

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Jefferson

Appellant

Robert Brown

Appellant

John Cantle

Appellant

Bruno Longo

Appellant

Richard Bailey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Jefferson knew of and participated in the fraudulent inflation of the purchase price of Sector 129 to deceive investors
  2. 2 Whether Mr Bailey misappropriated funds belonging to the appellants or Vista
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in preferring Mr Bailey's evidence over Mr Jefferson's regarding the disputed payments

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Mr Bailey over Mr Jefferson, found Mr Jefferson to be an unreliable and dishonest witness, and there was no sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claims of misappropriation or entitlement to the disputed sums.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed