Martin Hague & Anor v David Hague & Ors

Martin Hague & Anor v David Hague & Ors

The allegations of dishonesty regarding cash payments and acting contrary to legal advice are not sufficiently particularised and cannot be pursued at trial; the allegation of breach of section 172 duty is sufficiently pleaded and may proceed.

Parties
Petitioner: Mr Martin Hague; Petitioner: Mrs Jean Hague; Respondent: Mr David Hague; Respondent: Ms Dianne Hague; Respondent: Hague Plant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition / Interlocutory Application at Trial Commencement
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Directors' Duties, Pleading Standards, Section 172 Companies Act 2006
Company Law Unfair Prejudice Directors' Duties Pleading Standards Section 172 Companies Act 2006

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Martin Hague

Petitioner

Mrs Jean Hague

Petitioner

Mr David Hague

Respondent

Ms Dianne Hague

Respondent

Hague Plant Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition / Interlocutory Application at Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations of dishonesty and acting contrary to legal advice are sufficiently pleaded to be pursued at trial
  2. 2 Whether the pleading of breach of section 172 duty is sufficiently particularised

Ratio Decidendi

The allegations of dishonesty regarding cash payments and acting contrary to legal advice are not sufficiently particularised and cannot be pursued at trial; the allegation of breach of section 172 duty is sufficiently pleaded and may proceed.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Petitioners are precluded from pursuing at trial the allegations of dishonesty regarding cash payments and acting contrary to legal advice except as specifically pleaded.
  • Petitioners may pursue the allegation of breach of section 172 duty as currently pleaded.