Gill v Thind & Ors [2020] EWHC 2973 (Ch) (11 November 2020)

Gill v Thind & Ors [2020] EWHC 2973 (Ch) (11 November 2020)

Permission to continue all pleaded derivative and double derivative claims is refused as none disclose more than a prima facie case or are suitable for derivative action; alternative remedies such as unfair prejudice petition are preferable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2973 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Balwant Singh Gill; Defendant: Jashpal Singh Thind; Defendant: Baljit Gill Thind; Defendant: Jashpal Singh Thind, Baljit Gill Thind, Jeevan Singh Thind & Avneesh Singh Thind (Trustees of the Thind SSAS Pension Fund); Defendant: Jeeves Estates Limited; Defendant: Simicare Limited; Defendant: Watts Healthcare Limited; Defendant: Jeeves Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Derivative and Double Derivative Claims / Application for Permission to Continue Claims
Outcome
Permission to continue derivative and double derivative claims refused.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Double Derivative Claims, Fiduciary Duties, Trusts, Unfair Prejudice, Procedural Requirements
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Derivative Claims Double Derivative Claims Fiduciary Duties Trusts Unfair Prejudice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Balwant Singh Gill

Claimant

Jashpal Singh Thind

Defendant

Baljit Gill Thind

Defendant

Jashpal Singh Thind, Baljit Gill Thind, Jeevan Singh Thind & Avneesh Singh Thind (Trustees of the Thind SSAS Pension Fund)

Defendant

Jeeves Estates Limited

Defendant

Simicare Limited

Defendant

Watts Healthcare Limited

Defendant

Jeeves Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative and Double Derivative Claims / Application for Permission to Continue Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue derivative and double derivative claims
  2. 2 Whether breaches of fiduciary duty occurred
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies (unfair prejudice petition) are preferable

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue all pleaded derivative and double derivative claims is refused as none disclose more than a prima facie case or are suitable for derivative action; alternative remedies such as unfair prejudice petition are preferable.

Court Disposition

Permission to continue derivative and double derivative claims refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings may continue in relation to Mr Gill's personal claims.
  • Nothing prevents Mr Gill from issuing an unfair prejudice petition.