Glidepath Holding BV & Ors v John Thompson & Ors

Glidepath Holding BV & Ors v John Thompson & Ors

The court had jurisdiction to grant the original orders under its inherent powers; no material non-disclosure occurred that would justify setting aside the orders; the Norwich Pharmacal orders were properly made; the court has no power to appoint an arbitrator under s.18 as the statutory preconditions are not met; proceedings are stayed to arbitration.

Parties
Claimant: Glidepath Holding B.V.; Claimant: Jeimon Holdings NV; Claimant: Salford Continental Inc.; Defendant: John Thompson; Defendant: Steven Biddlecombe; Defendant: Mark Merrick; Defendant: Nicholas Anderson; Defendant: Earlyred Corporation NV; Defendant: Spherion Technology (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applications to set aside freezing, disclosure, and Norwich Pharmacal orders dismissed; claimants' application for appointment of arbitrator dismissed; proceedings stayed to arbitration.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Non Disclosure, Appointment of Arbitrator
Commercial Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Disclosure Orders Norwich Pharmacal Orders Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glidepath Holding B.V.

Claimant

Jeimon Holdings NV

Claimant

Salford Continental Inc.

Claimant

John Thompson

Defendant

Steven Biddlecombe

Defendant

Mark Merrick

Defendant

Nicholas Anderson

Defendant

Earlyred Corporation NV

Defendant

Spherion Technology (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing, disclosure, and disk-imaging orders should be set aside for lack of jurisdiction or material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether Norwich Pharmacal orders against third parties should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to appoint an arbitrator under s.18 Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to grant the original orders under its inherent powers; no material non-disclosure occurred that would justify setting aside the orders; the Norwich Pharmacal orders were properly made; the court has no power to appoint an arbitrator under s.18 as the statutory preconditions are not met; proceedings are stayed to arbitration.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside freezing, disclosure, and Norwich Pharmacal orders dismissed; claimants' application for appointment of arbitrator dismissed; proceedings stayed to arbitration.

Orders

  • First and sixth defendants' application to set aside March 2004 orders (as varied) dismissed.
  • Claimants' application for relief under s.18 Arbitration Act dismissed.