Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors [2023] EWHC 1867 (Ch) (20 July 2023)

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Ltd v Hadley & Ors [2023] EWHC 1867 (Ch) (20 July 2023)

Permission to appeal was refused as Mr Hadley failed to identify any arguable error, bias, or procedural unfairness; his grounds were fanciful and not substantiated. Stay of execution was refused as the appeal had no real prospect of success and the balance of hardship favored the Claimant. Damages and interest were quantified as claimed by the Claimant, with joint and several liability among relevant defendants, and costs were apportioned on a standard or indemnity basis according to conduct, with a payment on account ordered.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1867 (Ch)
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
20 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Fraud / Conspiracy / Consequentials Hearing Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal and stay of execution refused; damages, interest, and costs awarded to Claimant as specified; directions given for further hearing on outstanding issues.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Conspiracy, Bribery, Dishonest Assistance, Unconscionable Receipt, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Vicarious Liability, Costs, Interest, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Fraud Conspiracy Bribery Dishonest Assistance Unconscionable Receipt +6 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 / Consequentials Hearing Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused as Mr Hadley failed to identify any arguable error, bias, or procedural unfairness; his grounds were fanciful and not substantiated. Stay of execution was refused as the appeal had no real prospect of success and the balance of hardship favored the Claimant. Damages and interest were quantified as claimed by the Claimant, with joint and several liability among relevant defendants, and costs were apportioned on a standard or indemnity basis according to conduct, with a payment on account ordered.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal and stay of execution refused; damages, interest, and costs awarded to Claimant as specified; directions given for further hearing on outstanding issues.

Orders

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