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

Permission to appeal is refused as the proposed grounds are fanciful and do not meet the legal test; no stay of execution is granted as the balance of injustice favours the Claimant; damages and interest are awarded as calculated by the Claimant, with joint and several liability among relevant defendants; costs are awarded on a joint and several basis, with indemnity costs against Mr Hadley, PPL, and Mr Thwaite, and standard costs against others, apportioned as set out in the judgment.

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 (In Liquidation); Defendant: Bentley Jarrard Thwaite
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/fraud/conspiracy / Post Liability Consequential Judgment (quantum, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; damages and interest awarded as claimed; costs awarded as set out; directions for further hearing on certain issues.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Bribery, Dishonest Assistance, Unconscionable Receipt, Fiduciary Duty, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Interest, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Equity and Trusts Conspiracy Bribery Dishonest Assistance Unconscionable Receipt +7 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 (In Liquidation)

Defendant

Bentley Jarrard Thwaite

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/fraud/conspiracy / Post Liability Consequential Judgment (quantum, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted to Mr Hadley
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution should be granted
  3. 3 How damages and interest should be quantified and apportioned

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused as the proposed grounds are fanciful and do not meet the legal test; no stay of execution is granted as the balance of injustice favours the Claimant; damages and interest are awarded as calculated by the Claimant, with joint and several liability among relevant defendants; costs are awarded on a joint and several basis, with indemnity costs against Mr Hadley, PPL, and Mr Thwaite, and standard costs against others, apportioned as set out in the judgment.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; stay of execution refused; damages and interest awarded as claimed; costs awarded as set out; directions for further hearing on certain issues.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused to Mr Hadley.
  • Stay of execution refused to Mr Hadley.