William Andrew Tinkler & Anor v Invesco Asset Management Limited & Ors

William Andrew Tinkler & Anor v Invesco Asset Management Limited & Ors

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it constitutes a collateral attack on findings in previous judgments (Russen Judgment, Fraud Judgment, Defamation Claim, Esken Payment Judgment). The claim is incoherent once the central conspiracy allegation against the Four Directors is struck out, and remaining elements individually also amount to collateral attacks. Additionally, the claim is struck out for multiple breaches of CPR Part 31.22 due to misuse of disclosed documents without permission.

Parties
Claimant: William Andrew Tinkler; Claimant: Stobart Capital Limited; Defendant: Invesco Asset Management Limited; Defendant: Frederick Bouverat; Defendant: Orbitus Trustees (Guernsey) Limited; Defendant: Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out Application—final Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process and for breach of CPR Part 31.22
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Use of Documents, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Fiduciary Duties, Takeover Code Breaches
Civil Procedure Company Law Tort Law Abuse of Process Collateral Use of Documents Unlawful Means Conspiracy Dishonest Assistance Fiduciary Duties +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant

Stobart Capital Limited

Claimant

Invesco Asset Management Limited

Defendant

Frederick Bouverat

Defendant

Orbitus Trustees (Guernsey) Limited

Defendant

Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out Application—final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim constitutes a collateral attack on previous judgments
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claim breaches CPR Part 31.22 (collateral use restriction)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it constitutes a collateral attack on findings in previous judgments (Russen Judgment, Fraud Judgment, Defamation Claim, Esken Payment Judgment). The claim is incoherent once the central conspiracy allegation against the Four Directors is struck out, and remaining elements individually also amount to collateral attacks. Additionally, the claim is struck out for multiple breaches of CPR Part 31.22 due to misuse of disclosed documents without permission.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process and for breach of CPR Part 31.22

Orders

  • Claim Form and Particulars of Claim struck out
  • Time extended for permission to appeal until final order is sealed