Sidhu & Anor v Memory Corporation Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 9 (21 January 2000)

Sidhu & Anor v Memory Corporation Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 9 (21 January 2000)

The appeal is dismissed because the breach of duty by counsel was not deliberate, affected only the form of the order, was remedied promptly, and did not warrant the drastic sanction of discharging the freezing and search orders. The claimants and their lawyers were not aware of any illegality in obtaining bank...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 9
Parties
Claimant: Memory Corporation plc; Claimant: Datrontech Hong Kong Ltd; Defendant: Sukhbir Singh Sidhu; Intended Second Defendant: Sunsar Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Order Dismissing Application to Discharge Freezing and Search Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Search Orders, Material Non Disclosure, Duty of Full Disclosure, Advocate's Duty, Data Protection Act, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Equity Company Law Freezing Orders Search Orders Material Non Disclosure Duty of Full Disclosure Advocate's Duty +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Memory Corporation plc

Claimant

Datrontech Hong Kong Ltd

Claimant

Sukhbir Singh Sidhu

Defendant

Sunsar Limited

Intended Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Order Dismissing Application to Discharge Freezing and Search Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure or advocate's misrepresentation warrants discharge of freezing and search orders
  2. 2 Whether claimants' failure to disclose possible illegality in obtaining bank account information constitutes material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Distinction between duty of full disclosure and advocate's duty to the court

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the breach of duty by counsel was not deliberate, affected only the form of the order, was remedied promptly, and did not warrant the drastic sanction of discharging the freezing and search orders. The claimants and their lawyers were not aware of any illegality in obtaining bank account information, and their omission to raise this point did not constitute material non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs