Trow v Durmast Group Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1485 (Ch) (23 June 2017)

Trow v Durmast Group Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1485 (Ch) (23 June 2017)

The court found that no actionable misrepresentation occurred regarding the inter-company margin; the statements alleged by Duncan were not made, and there was no reliance by Durmast on any such representation. The claimants are entitled to payment under the loan notes, and the employment-related claims are determined according to the contractual documentation and evidence. Counterclaims for overpaid pension and BUPA contributions are addressed on the facts and contract terms.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1485 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alistair Kenneth Bruno Trow; Claimant: Stephen Roderick Trow; Claimant: Charlotte Jane Trow; Defendant: Durmast Group Ltd; Defendant: Duncan Richard Trow; Defendant: PFC Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Claims (chancery Division) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Misrepresentation claim dismissed; claimants entitled to payment under loan notes; employment and pension claims determined per judgment; counterclaims partially addressed.
Legal Topics
Shareholder Disputes, Loan Note Enforcement, Misrepresentation in Company Buy Out, Employment Contract Claims, Pension Contributions, Directors' Duties
Company Law Contract Law Employment Law Misrepresentation Shareholder Disputes Loan Note Enforcement Misrepresentation in Company Buy Out Employment Contract Claims +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistair Kenneth Bruno Trow

Claimant

Stephen Roderick Trow

Claimant

Charlotte Jane Trow

Claimant

Durmast Group Ltd

Defendant

Duncan Richard Trow

Defendant

PFC Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Claims (chancery Division) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misrepresentation occurred regarding inter-company margin in the buy-out
  2. 2 Entitlement to payment under loan notes
  3. 3 Entitlement to unpaid salary, bonus/dividends, and pension contributions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no actionable misrepresentation occurred regarding the inter-company margin; the statements alleged by Duncan were not made, and there was no reliance by Durmast on any such representation. The claimants are entitled to payment under the loan notes, and the employment-related claims are determined according to the contractual documentation and evidence. Counterclaims for overpaid pension and BUPA contributions are addressed on the facts and contract terms.

Court Disposition

Misrepresentation claim dismissed; claimants entitled to payment under loan notes; employment and pension claims determined per judgment; counterclaims partially addressed.

Orders

  • Durmast to pay Alistair and Rod the principal and agreed interest on loan notes.
  • Employment and pension claims to be settled as per judgment findings.