Hemsley & Anor v Graham & Ors

Hemsley & Anor v Graham & Ors

All active defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to induce the claimants to invest in WBL through false representations, fabricated documents, and cross-firing payments. The defendants knowingly misrepresented WBL's financial position, breached warranties, and conspired to defraud the claimants. Liability for deceit, conspiracy, and breach of warranty is established.

Parties
Claimant: Stephen Hemsley; Claimant: RBC Trustees (CI) Ltd; Defendant: Peter Graham; Defendant: Mohammad Ishaq Malik; Defendant: Sunil Bance; Defendant: Christopher Arnold; Defendant: Antonia Graham/Jones; Defendant: Wey Bridging Ltd (In Liquidation); Defendant: Sara Meurisse; Claimant: Capital For Enterprise Fund LP; Claimant: Maven Capital Partners UK LLP; Claimant: CFE A General Partner Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for claimants
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Breach of Warranty, Fiduciary Duties, Mortgage Fraud, Audit Deception
Fraud Company Law Contract Law Misrepresentation Conspiracy Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unlawful Means Conspiracy Breach of Warranty +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hemsley

Claimant

RBC Trustees (CI) Ltd

Claimant

Peter Graham

Defendant

Mohammad Ishaq Malik

Defendant

Sunil Bance

Defendant

Christopher Arnold

Defendant

Antonia Graham/Jones

Defendant

Wey Bridging Ltd (In Liquidation)

Defendant

Sara Meurisse

Defendant

Capital For Enterprise Fund LP

Claimant

Maven Capital Partners UK LLP

Claimant

CFE A General Partner Ltd

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the claimants induced to invest in WBL by fraudulent misrepresentations?
  2. 2 Did the defendants participate in an unlawful means conspiracy to defraud the claimants?
  3. 3 Were warranties breached in the share purchase agreements?

Ratio Decidendi

All active defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to induce the claimants to invest in WBL through false representations, fabricated documents, and cross-firing payments. The defendants knowingly misrepresented WBL's financial position, breached warranties, and conspired to defraud the claimants. Liability for deceit, conspiracy, and breach of warranty is established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimants

Orders

  • Defendants liable for deceit, conspiracy, and breach of warranty.
  • Claimants entitled to rescission and damages; quantum to be determined.