Chancery Client Partners Ltd & Ors v MRC 957 Ltd & Ors

Chancery Client Partners Ltd & Ors v MRC 957 Ltd & Ors

The claimants are not entitled to rescind the agreements and arrangements by which the tax mitigation schemes were carried into effect, as the law does not permit rescission of contracts with innocent third parties in cases of bribery, undue influence, or common mistake unless those parties were complicit or had knowledge. The requirements for rescission based on undue influence or common mistake were not met on the facts.

Parties
Claimant: Chancery Client Partners Limited; Claimant: Bank Charge Refunds Limited; Claimant: Stephen Sean Fielding; Claimant: J & L Rental Limited; Defendant: MRC 957 Limited; Defendant: Sonia Iraseme Coyle; Defendant: The Estate of Mark Robert Coyle Deceased; Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs; Defendant: Christopher McMahon; Defendant: David Donovan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Rescission Claims
Outcome
Rescission claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Bribery and Secret Commissions, Rescission, Undue Influence, Common Mistake
Contract Law Equity Commercial Law Bribery and Secret Commissions Rescission Undue Influence Common Mistake

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

Parties

Chancery Client Partners Limited

Claimant

Bank Charge Refunds Limited

Claimant

Stephen Sean Fielding

Claimant

J & L Rental Limited

Claimant

MRC 957 Limited

Defendant

Sonia Iraseme Coyle

Defendant

The Estate of Mark Robert Coyle Deceased

Defendant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant

Christopher McMahon

Defendant

David Donovan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Rescission Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to rescind the agreements and arrangements by which tax mitigation schemes were carried into effect due to bribery, undue influence, or common mistake.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants are not entitled to rescind the agreements and arrangements by which the tax mitigation schemes were carried into effect, as the law does not permit rescission of contracts with innocent third parties in cases of bribery, undue influence, or common mistake unless those parties were complicit or had knowledge. The requirements for rescission based on undue influence or common mistake were not met on the facts.

Court Disposition

Rescission claims dismissed

Orders

  • The Rescission Claims are dismissed as agreed between the parties.