Griffith v Gourgey & Ors

Griffith v Gourgey & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was wrong to strike out the claim for relief against the Sons in the G&G petition on the basis of inadequate pleading, as the points of claim sufficiently alleged breach of duty by the Sons through their support of Mr Gourgey. The omission from the petition should be cured by amendment. The judge was also wrong to allow the respondents to plead a full defence to the amended points of claim in the Bankside petition, as the amendment did not introduce new grounds for relief. Permission to plead a defence should be limited to new arguments arising from the amendment.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Nicholas John Clwyd Griffith; Respondent: Neil Joseph Gourgey; Respondent: Charles Duncan Gourgey; Respondent: Robert Lewis and Nicholas Edward Reed (as Joint Trustees of the Estate of Robert John Hodge); Respondent: G&G Properties Limited; Respondent: Maurice Saleh Gourgey; Respondent: Bankside Hotels Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Interlocutory Applications in Unfair Prejudice Petitions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Section 994 Companies Act 2006, Pleadings and Amendments, Strike Out Applications, Directors' Duties
Company Law Unfair Prejudice Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Pleadings and Amendments Strike Out Applications Directors' Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas John Clwyd Griffith

Appellant/petitioner

Neil Joseph Gourgey

Respondent

Charles Duncan Gourgey

Respondent

Robert Lewis and Nicholas Edward Reed (as Joint Trustees of the Estate of Robert John Hodge)

Respondent

G&G Properties Limited

Respondent

Maurice Saleh Gourgey

Respondent

Bankside Hotels Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Interlocutory Applications in Unfair Prejudice Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition and points of claim sufficiently pleaded unfairly prejudicial conduct by the Sons to justify relief against them
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in striking out relief against the Sons in the G&G petition
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in allowing the respondents to plead a full defence to amended points of claim in the Bankside petition

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was wrong to strike out the claim for relief against the Sons in the G&G petition on the basis of inadequate pleading, as the points of claim sufficiently alleged breach of duty by the Sons through their support of Mr Gourgey. The omission from the petition should be cured by amendment. The judge was also wrong to allow the respondents to plead a full defence to the amended points of claim in the Bankside petition, as the amendment did not introduce new grounds for relief. Permission to plead a defence should be limited to new arguments arising from the amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal in the G&G petition allowed on ground 2; claim for relief against the Sons reinstated, subject to amendment of the petition to conform to the points of claim.
  • Appeal in the Bankside petition allowed; permission for respondents to plead a defence limited to new arguments arising from the amendment regarding the 8 additional shares.