Gill v Thind & Ors

Gill v Thind & Ors

Permission to continue the pleaded derivative and double derivative claims was refused because none disclosed even a prima facie case, and alternative remedies such as an unfair prejudice petition were preferable. Procedural failures and lack of bad faith did not affect the outcome.

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 Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative and Double Derivative Claims
Outcome
Permission to continue derivative and double derivative claims refused.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Double Derivative Claims, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Trusts, Unfair Prejudice, Procedural Requirements
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Derivative Claims Double Derivative Claims Fiduciary Duties Breach of Duty Trusts +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
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 Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative and Double Derivative Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue derivative and double derivative claims
  2. 2 Whether pleaded breaches of fiduciary duty disclose a prima facie case
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies such as unfair prejudice petitions are preferable

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the pleaded derivative and double derivative claims was refused because none disclosed even a prima facie case, and alternative remedies such as an unfair prejudice petition were preferable. Procedural failures and lack of bad faith did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Permission to continue derivative and double derivative claims refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings may continue in relation to Mr Gill’s personal claims.
  • Mr Gill may issue an unfair prejudice petition if desired.