Andrew Breeze and Dominic Wilson v The Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary

Andrew Breeze and Dominic Wilson v The Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary

Claims by shareholders for diminution in share value or financial losses reflective of company losses are barred by the reflective loss principle as clarified in Marex. The Giles v Rhind exception is no longer valid. Amendments seeking to recharacterise such losses as recoverable by shareholders, ex-shareholders, or indirect shareholders are not permitted. However, claims for loss of remuneration as an employee, director, or executive officer, if not reflective of shareholding, may proceed. Amendments for loss of reputation and other financial losses are refused due to lack of clarity, delay, and poor prospects of success.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Breeze; Claimant: Dominic Wilson; Defendant: The Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (company Law, Tort) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings)
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out allowed in respect of all claims relying on Giles v Rhind and reflective loss; claimants' application to amend refused except for claims relating to loss of remuneration as employee/director/executive officer; minor clarificatory amendments allowed.
Legal Topics
Reflective Loss, Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications
Company Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Reflective Loss Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Breeze

Claimant

Dominic Wilson

Claimant

The Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (company Law, Tort) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for diminution in share value by shareholders are barred by the reflective loss principle post-Marex
  2. 2 Whether the Giles v Rhind exception to the reflective loss rule survives after Marex
  3. 3 Whether claimants can amend pleadings to introduce new/refashioned claims for financial losses, loss of remuneration, and loss of reputation

Ratio Decidendi

Claims by shareholders for diminution in share value or financial losses reflective of company losses are barred by the reflective loss principle as clarified in Marex. The Giles v Rhind exception is no longer valid. Amendments seeking to recharacterise such losses as recoverable by shareholders, ex-shareholders, or indirect shareholders are not permitted. However, claims for loss of remuneration as an employee, director, or executive officer, if not reflective of shareholding, may proceed. Amendments for loss of reputation and other financial losses are refused due to lack of clarity, delay, and poor prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out allowed in respect of all claims relying on Giles v Rhind and reflective loss; claimants' application to amend refused except for claims relating to loss of remuneration as employee/director/executive officer; minor clarificatory amendments allowed.

Orders

  • Strike out all pleadings and amendments relying on Giles v Rhind exception and reflective loss claims by shareholders, ex-shareholders, or indirect shareholders.
  • Refuse permission to amend pleadings to introduce new/refashioned claims for financial losses and loss of reputation.