Mary Kathryn Leslie & Anor v Robert James Ball & Ors

Mary Kathryn Leslie & Anor v Robert James Ball & Ors

The application for a pre-emptive indemnity is refused because the existence of a parallel unfair prejudice petition, which incorporates the same factual allegations and seeks relief for the claimants' personal benefit, means the claimants are not acting solely as agents for the company. Granting an indemnity would create unfairness and an inequality of arms, and the court is not satisfied to a high degree of assurance that an indemnity would be appropriate after trial.

Parties
Claimant: Mary Kathryn Leslie; Claimant: David Arthur Rule; Defendant: Robert James Ball; Defendant: Melanie Ball; Defendant: Westridge Estates Limited; Defendant: Arnbrow Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim (double Derivative) and Unfair Prejudice Petition / Application for Pre Emptive Indemnity for Costs
Outcome
Application for pre-emptive indemnity dismissed
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Unfair Prejudice, Directors' Fiduciary Duties, Costs Indemnity, Double Derivative Claims
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Unfair Prejudice Directors' Fiduciary Duties Costs Indemnity Double Derivative Claims

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Kathryn Leslie

Claimant

David Arthur Rule

Claimant

Robert James Ball

Defendant

Melanie Ball

Defendant

Westridge Estates Limited

Defendant

Arnbrow Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim (double Derivative) and Unfair Prejudice Petition / Application for Pre Emptive Indemnity for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to a pre-emptive indemnity for costs in a double derivative claim where there is a parallel unfair prejudice petition relying on the same facts
  2. 2 Whether the existence of an unfair prejudice petition precludes or affects the grant of a pre-emptive indemnity
  3. 3 Whether the court should be satisfied to a high degree of assurance that an indemnity would be appropriate after trial before granting a pre-emptive indemnity

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a pre-emptive indemnity is refused because the existence of a parallel unfair prejudice petition, which incorporates the same factual allegations and seeks relief for the claimants' personal benefit, means the claimants are not acting solely as agents for the company. Granting an indemnity would create unfairness and an inequality of arms, and the court is not satisfied to a high degree of assurance that an indemnity would be appropriate after trial.

Court Disposition

Application for pre-emptive indemnity dismissed