Arrow Nominees Inc & Anor v Blackledge & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 200 (22 June 2000)

Arrow Nominees Inc & Anor v Blackledge & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 200 (22 June 2000)

The petition was struck out because the admitted forgeries and continuing dishonesty by Nigel Tobias created a significant risk that a fair trial was impossible. The taint extended to documents, affidavits, and witness statements, undermining the integrity of the proceedings. The appeal against the refusal to strike out was allowed. The cross-appeal and application for injunctive relief were dismissed as a consequence.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 200
Parties
Petitioner: Arrow Nominees Inc; Petitioner: Lorraine Blackledge; Respondent: Graham Blackledge; Respondent: Margaret Blackledge; Respondent: GR & MM Blackledge plc; Respondent: Bodycare (Health & Beauty) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Company Law Petition (section 459 Companies Act 1985) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out and Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Appeal allowed; petition struck out; cross-appeal and injunction application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Section 459 Companies Act 1985, Strike Out for Abuse of Process, Forgery and Perverting the Course of Justice, Injunctions in Company Disputes
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Section 459 Companies Act 1985 Strike Out for Abuse of Process Forgery and Perverting the Course of Justice Injunctions in Company Disputes

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrow Nominees Inc

Petitioner

Lorraine Blackledge

Petitioner

Graham Blackledge

Respondent

Margaret Blackledge

Respondent

GR & MM Blackledge plc

Respondent

Bodycare (Health & Beauty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Petition (section 459 Companies Act 1985) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out and Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition should be struck out due to abuse of process following admitted forgeries by a petitioner
  2. 2 Whether a fair trial was possible given the extent of document falsification and dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under section 459 Companies Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was struck out because the admitted forgeries and continuing dishonesty by Nigel Tobias created a significant risk that a fair trial was impossible. The taint extended to documents, affidavits, and witness statements, undermining the integrity of the proceedings. The appeal against the refusal to strike out was allowed. The cross-appeal and application for injunctive relief were dismissed as a consequence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; petition struck out; cross-appeal and injunction application dismissed.

Orders

  • Petition under section 459 Companies Act 1985 struck out as an abuse of process.
  • Cross-appeal by petitioners dismissed.