Chauvidul- AW v Phongphongsavat & Anor

Chauvidul- AW v Phongphongsavat & Anor

The claimant failed to prove any binding agreement or common intention entitling her to a one-third share in Dootv Limited or the VDO business after May 2008; Tua lacked authority to bind Rote; no trust or partnership existed; all claims dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Narisa Chauvidul-AW; Defendant: Khodsadavan Phongphongsavat; Defendant: Dootv Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Partnership, Shareholding, Constructive Trust, Agency, Rectification of Register, Freezing Order
Contract Law Company Law Equity Partnership Shareholding Constructive Trust Agency Rectification of Register +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Narisa Chauvidul-AW

Claimant

Khodsadavan Phongphongsavat

Defendant

Dootv Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding agreement entitling the claimant to a one-third share in Dootv Limited or the VDO business after May 2008
  2. 2 Whether Tua had authority to bind Rote to such an agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendants held assets on trust for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove any binding agreement or common intention entitling her to a one-third share in Dootv Limited or the VDO business after May 2008; Tua lacked authority to bind Rote; no trust or partnership existed; all claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed