Barnsley & Ors v Noble

Barnsley & Ors v Noble

No binding contract was concluded regarding the VAT repayment split; the parties did not 'contractualise' any oral agreement at completion. No actionable misrepresentation was made by the defendant, who honestly expressed his opinion on the VAT claims. The defendant did not owe or breach a duty of care in tort, nor did he breach fiduciary duties in a manner not protected by the exoneration clause in the will. The claims for contractual, tortious, and equitable relief all fail.

Parties
Claimant: John Corbitt Barnsley; Claimant: Gillian Elizabeth Noble; Claimant: LGL Trustees Limited; Claimant: LGL Nominees Limited; Defendant: Philip Noble
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Self Dealing Rule, Fiduciary Duties, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Demerger of Family Business, Disclosure Obligations, Equitable Compensation
Trusts and Equity Contract Law Tort Law Self Dealing Rule Fiduciary Duties Misrepresentation Negligence Demerger of Family Business +2 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Corbitt Barnsley

Claimant

Gillian Elizabeth Noble

Claimant

LGL Trustees Limited

Claimant

LGL Nominees Limited

Claimant

Philip Noble

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is contractually bound to pay a share of VAT repayments to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the defendant made actionable misrepresentations regarding the VAT claims
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached fiduciary duties including the self-dealing rule and disclosure obligations

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was concluded regarding the VAT repayment split; the parties did not 'contractualise' any oral agreement at completion. No actionable misrepresentation was made by the defendant, who honestly expressed his opinion on the VAT claims. The defendant did not owe or breach a duty of care in tort, nor did he breach fiduciary duties in a manner not protected by the exoneration clause in the will. The claims for contractual, tortious, and equitable relief all fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order for equitable compensation or account of profits is made.