Russell v Cartwright & Ors [2020] EWHC 41 (Ch) (20 January 2020)

Russell v Cartwright & Ors [2020] EWHC 41 (Ch) (20 January 2020)

The defendants did not owe fiduciary duties to the claimant, and the express and implied contractual obligations of good faith and disclosure were not breached regarding the Wembley project. The Wembley project was a Hub project, not a competing or diverted opportunity. No fraud or dishonesty was established, and the claimant was not wrongfully excluded. The Settlement Deed's release provisions bar the claim. The defendants' counterclaim for indemnity costs is upheld.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 41 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Rajan Russell; Defendant: Edward Cartwright; Defendant: Robert Sloss; Defendant: Timothy Barlow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Chancery / First Stage of Split Trial – Liability and Basis for Damages
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for indemnity costs upheld.
Legal Topics
Joint Venture, Fiduciary Duties, Implied Terms, Good Faith, Fraud, Release and Settlement, Unlawful Means Conspiracy
Commercial Law Company Law Contract Law Joint Venture Fiduciary Duties Implied Terms Good Faith Fraud +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

Commercial Chancery / First Stage of Split Trial – Liability and Basis for Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed fiduciary or contractual duties to the claimant regarding disclosure and participation in the Wembley project
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached express or implied duties of good faith, fair dealing, or disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the defendants acted fraudulently or dishonestly in excluding the claimant from the Wembley project

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not owe fiduciary duties to the claimant, and the express and implied contractual obligations of good faith and disclosure were not breached regarding the Wembley project. The Wembley project was a Hub project, not a competing or diverted opportunity. No fraud or dishonesty was established, and the claimant was not wrongfully excluded. The Settlement Deed's release provisions bar the claim. The defendants' counterclaim for indemnity costs is upheld.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for indemnity costs upheld.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim dismissed in full.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.