Russell v Cartwright & Ors

Russell v Cartwright & Ors

The defendants did not owe the claimant any fiduciary or contractual duty to disclose the Wembley project or other opportunities. There was no fraud, dishonesty, or conspiracy. The claimant was not interested in other projects, did not request information, and no instruction to withhold information was given. The Settlement Deed released all claims except those based on fraud, which was not established. The claimant breached the Settlement Deed by bringing these proceedings, entitling the defendants to indemnity costs.

Parties
Claimant: Rajan Russell; Defendant: Edward Cartwright; Defendant: Robert Sloss; Defendant: Timothy Barlow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Liability and Counterclaim (first Stage of Split Trial)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Implied Terms, Good Faith in Contracts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Release and Settlement Agreements, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Contract Law Equity and Trusts Company Law Fiduciary Duties Implied Terms Good Faith in Contracts Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unlawful Means Conspiracy +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajan Russell

Claimant

Edward Cartwright

Defendant

Robert Sloss

Defendant

Timothy Barlow

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Liability and Counterclaim (first Stage of Split Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed fiduciary or contractual duties of disclosure/good faith to the claimant regarding the Wembley project
  2. 2 Whether there was fraud, dishonesty, or conspiracy by the defendants in failing to disclose the Wembley project
  3. 3 Whether the Settlement Deed released the claims brought by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not owe the claimant any fiduciary or contractual duty to disclose the Wembley project or other opportunities. There was no fraud, dishonesty, or conspiracy. The claimant was not interested in other projects, did not request information, and no instruction to withhold information was given. The Settlement Deed released all claims except those based on fraud, which was not established. The claimant breached the Settlement Deed by bringing these proceedings, entitling the defendants to indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim is dismissed in its entirety
  • Defendants' counterclaim succeeds; claimant to pay defendants' costs on the indemnity basis