Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) v James David Hadley & Ors.

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) v James David Hadley & Ors.

The Applicants failed to demonstrate any misrepresentation, let alone fraudulent misrepresentation, by the Claimant or its legal team. No new grounds were presented that would justify a further adjournment. The application was dismissed as utterly without merit, and indemnity costs were ordered against the Applicants.

Parties
Claimant: Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: James David Hadley; Defendant: Thomas William Gordon Biggar; Defendant: Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark; Defendant: Andrew Christopher Jones; Defendant: Titan Capital Partners Limited; Defendant: CGrowth Capital Bond Limited; Defendant: William Macfarland Wright III; Defendant: Pinnacle Brokers Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Mark Lloyd; Defendant: Vivere Forti International Foundation; Defendant: Kirsty Louise Platt; Defendant: Platinum Pyramid Limited; Defendant: Bentley Jarrard Thwaite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (third Adjournment Application During Trial)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Case Management, Disclosure Obligations, Bribery Allegations
Civil Procedure Fraud Adjournment of Trial Fraudulent Misrepresentation Case Management Disclosure Obligations Bribery Allegations

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

James David Hadley

Defendant

Thomas William Gordon Biggar

Defendant

Stuart Neil Chapman-Clark

Defendant

Andrew Christopher Jones

Defendant

Titan Capital Partners Limited

Defendant

CGrowth Capital Bond Limited

Defendant

William Macfarland Wright III

Defendant

Pinnacle Brokers Limited (In Liquidation)

Defendant

Mark Lloyd

Defendant

Vivere Forti International Foundation

Defendant

Kirsty Louise Platt

Defendant

Platinum Pyramid Limited

Defendant

Bentley Jarrard Thwaite

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (third Adjournment Application During Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned pending Supreme Court leave to appeal and/or to allow investigation of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant or its legal team made fraudulent misrepresentations to the High Court or Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to demonstrate any misrepresentation, let alone fraudulent misrepresentation, by the Claimant or its legal team. No new grounds were presented that would justify a further adjournment. The application was dismissed as utterly without merit, and indemnity costs were ordered against the Applicants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for adjournment dismissed as utterly without merit
  • Costs ordered against the Applicants on an indemnity basis in favour of the Claimant and the 9th Defendant