Haysport Properties Ltd & Anor v Ackerman

Haysport Properties Ltd & Anor v Ackerman

Mr Ackerman breached his fiduciary duties by causing the Claimants to enter into transactions for the benefit of a company in which he had an interest, without proper disclosure, independent advice, or benefit to the Claimants. The claims are not statute barred because the breaches involved conferring benefit on a company he controlled, falling within section 21(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980, and because there was deliberate concealment of the breaches until an independent board was appointed.

Parties
Claimant: Haysport Properties Limited; Claimant: Twinsectra Limited; Defendant: Joseph Ackerman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; Mr Ackerman found liable for breach of fiduciary duty.
Legal Topics
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Limitation of Actions, Conflict of Interest, Directors' Duties, Charitable Companies
Company Law Charity Law Trust Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty Limitation of Actions Conflict of Interest Directors' Duties Charitable Companies

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haysport Properties Limited

Claimant

Twinsectra Limited

Claimant

Joseph Ackerman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Ackerman breached his fiduciary duties as director of the Claimants by causing them to grant security and make an unsecured loan for the benefit of a company in which he had an interest
  2. 2 Whether the claims are statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether Mr Ackerman acted dishonestly or in deliberate breach of duty so as to disapply limitation

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ackerman breached his fiduciary duties by causing the Claimants to enter into transactions for the benefit of a company in which he had an interest, without proper disclosure, independent advice, or benefit to the Claimants. The claims are not statute barred because the breaches involved conferring benefit on a company he controlled, falling within section 21(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980, and because there was deliberate concealment of the breaches until an independent board was appointed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Mr Ackerman found liable for breach of fiduciary duty.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Ackerman is liable to indemnify the Claimants for losses suffered by reason of the granting of security and the loan
  • Order for payment of all sums found due as a result of such indemnity