Arrow Nominees Inc v. Blackledge [1999] EWHC Ch 198 (2nd November, 1999)

Arrow Nominees Inc v. Blackledge [1999] EWHC Ch 198 (2nd November, 1999)

The petition should not be struck out despite the admitted forgeries and destruction of documents by Nigel Tobias, because on the evidence there is no significant risk that a fair trial cannot now take place. The court's power to strike out is not to punish but to ensure fairness, and unless the misconduct renders a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] EWHC Ch 198
Parties
Petitioner: Arrow Nominees Inc; Petitioner: Lorraine Blackledge; Respondent: Graham Blackledge; Respondent: Margaret Blackledge; Respondent: GR & MM Blackledge PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Section 459 Companies Act 1985 Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Petition
Outcome
Application to strike out petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice Petition, Abuse of Process, Fraud on the Court, Disclosure Obligations, Striking Out Proceedings
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Petition Abuse of Process Fraud on the Court Disclosure Obligations Striking Out Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrow Nominees Inc

Petitioner

Lorraine Blackledge

Petitioner

Graham Blackledge

Respondent

Margaret Blackledge

Respondent

GR & MM Blackledge PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 459 Companies Act 1985 Petition (unfair Prejudice) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition should be struck out due to fraudulent conduct and abuse of process by one petitioner (forgery of documents and diaries)
  2. 2 Whether such conduct renders a fair trial impossible or is otherwise sufficient to justify striking out the petition

Ratio Decidendi

The petition should not be struck out despite the admitted forgeries and destruction of documents by Nigel Tobias, because on the evidence there is no significant risk that a fair trial cannot now take place. The court's power to strike out is not to punish but to ensure fairness, and unless the misconduct renders a fair trial impossible, the proceedings should continue. The evidence does not establish that further undiscovered forgeries exist or that the respondents are unable to have a fair trial. The position may be revisited if further evidence of suppression or fraud emerges at trial.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition to proceed to substantive hearing
  • Liberty to renew application if further evidence of fraud or suppression emerges at trial