Naibu Global International Company PLC & Anor v Daniel Stewart & Company PLC & Anor

Naibu Global International Company PLC & Anor v Daniel Stewart & Company PLC & Anor

Naibu Jersey's claim for losses based on diminution in shareholding value is barred by the reflective loss principle as confirmed in Marex; only claims for costs of steps taken to assert control and investigate losses are permitted to proceed. Pinsent Masons' application for a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act is dismissed as Naibu Jersey is not claiming under or through Naibu HK.

Parties
Claimant: Naibu Global International Company PLC; Claimant: Naibu (HK) International Investment Limited; Defendant: Daniel Stewart & Company PLC; Defendant: Pinsent Masons LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out/summary Judgment and Stay Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out except for claims relating to costs of steps to assert control and investigate losses; permission granted to amend Particulars of Claim for those categories; stay application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Implied Retainer, Duty of Care, Reflective Loss, Arbitration Stay, Shareholder Claims
Company Law Contract Law Tort Law Arbitration Implied Retainer Duty of Care Reflective Loss Arbitration Stay +1 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naibu Global International Company PLC

Claimant

Naibu (HK) International Investment Limited

Claimant

Daniel Stewart & Company PLC

Defendant

Pinsent Masons LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out/summary Judgment and Stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pinsent Masons owed an implied retainer or duty of care to Naibu Jersey
  2. 2 Whether Naibu Jersey's losses are barred by the reflective loss principle
  3. 3 Whether Naibu Jersey's claim should be stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Naibu Jersey's claim for losses based on diminution in shareholding value is barred by the reflective loss principle as confirmed in Marex; only claims for costs of steps taken to assert control and investigate losses are permitted to proceed. Pinsent Masons' application for a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act is dismissed as Naibu Jersey is not claiming under or through Naibu HK.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out except for claims relating to costs of steps to assert control and investigate losses; permission granted to amend Particulars of Claim for those categories; stay application dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to add claims for costs of steps to assert control and investigate losses granted.
  • Pinsent Masons' application for stay under s.9 Arbitration Act dismissed.