Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) (18 May 2012)

Brown & Ors v Innovatorone Plc & Ors [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) (18 May 2012)

The court found that the claimants failed to establish that they were not made partners in accordance with the relevant partnership deeds and documents. The evidence did not support a finding of actionable fraud or conspiracy by the principal defendants. While there were deficiencies in scheme administration and documentation, the claimants did not prove that subscription monies were misapplied or held on trust for them individually. The court held that the schemes, though ultimately unsuccessful from a tax perspective, were not operated in breach of trust or with dishonest intent by the main defendants. Claims for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonest assistance were...

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Brown and others; Defendant: InnovatorOne Plc and others; Defendant: Collyer Bristow (CB); Defendant: John Bailey; Defendant: Jonathan Roper; Defendant: Paul Carter; Defendant: David Gates; Defendant: Bjorn Stiedl; Defendant: Vermilion
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Multi Party Civil Claim / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Breach of Trust, Dishonest Assistance, Conspiracy, Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (fsma), Contract Law, Accessory Liability, Damages
Commercial Law Tax Law Financial Regulation Trusts Tort Fraud Misrepresentation Breach of Trust +8 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brown and others

Claimant

InnovatorOne Plc and others

Defendant

Collyer Bristow (CB)

Defendant

John Bailey

Defendant

Jonathan Roper

Defendant

Paul Carter

Defendant

David Gates

Defendant

Bjorn Stiedl

Defendant

Vermilion

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Multi Party Civil Claim / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Innovator Schemes involved actionable fraud or conspiracy against investors
  2. 2 Whether claimants were ever validly made partners in the relevant partnerships
  3. 3 Whether there was misappropriation or breach of trust regarding subscription monies

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants failed to establish that they were not made partners in accordance with the relevant partnership deeds and documents. The evidence did not support a finding of actionable fraud or conspiracy by the principal defendants. While there were deficiencies in scheme administration and documentation, the claimants did not prove that subscription monies were misapplied or held on trust for them individually. The court held that the schemes, though ultimately unsuccessful from a tax perspective, were not operated in breach of trust or with dishonest intent by the main defendants. Claims for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonest assistance were...

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimants are dismissed against the principal defendants.
  • No order for damages or restitution is made.