Equitable Life Assurance Society v Bowley & Ors

Equitable Life Assurance Society v Bowley & Ors

Equitable’s claims against the non-executive directors cannot be dismissed as having no real prospect of success; the issues are sufficiently complex and fact-sensitive to warrant a full trial rather than summary judgment.

Parties
Claimant: The Equitable Life Assurance Society; Defendant: Roger Bowley; Defendant: Peter Davis; Defendant: Christopher Heddon; Defendant: Shaun Kinnis; Defendant: Peter Martin; Defendant: Alan Nash; Defendant: Jennifer Page; Defendant: David Price; Defendant: Roy Ranson; Defendant: John Sclater; Defendant: I. Peter Sedgwick; Defendant: Jonathan Taylor; Defendant: David Thomas; Defendant: Alan Tritton; Defendant: David Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; claims to proceed to full trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Summary Judgment, Directors' Duties, Bonus Declarations, Mis Selling, Statute of Limitations
Company Law Director Liability Insurance Law Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Summary Judgment Directors' Duties Bonus Declarations +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Equitable Life Assurance Society

Claimant

Roger Bowley

Defendant

Peter Davis

Defendant

Christopher Heddon

Defendant

Shaun Kinnis

Defendant

Peter Martin

Defendant

Alan Nash

Defendant

Jennifer Page

Defendant

David Price

Defendant

Roy Ranson

Defendant

John Sclater

Defendant

I. Peter Sedgwick

Defendant

Jonathan Taylor

Defendant

David Thomas

Defendant

Alan Tritton

Defendant

David Wilson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-executive directors were negligent in approving and continuing the DTBP without legal advice
  2. 2 Whether directors breached fiduciary duty by using discretion under Article 65 for improper purpose
  3. 3 Whether directors should have reduced bonuses and informed policyholders of risks after Hyman litigation commenced

Ratio Decidendi

Equitable’s claims against the non-executive directors cannot be dismissed as having no real prospect of success; the issues are sufficiently complex and fact-sensitive to warrant a full trial rather than summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; claims to proceed to full trial.

Orders

  • Applications for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Claims against non-executive directors to proceed to trial.