The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks & Ors [2011] EWHC 287 (Ch) (17 February 2011)

The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks & Ors [2011] EWHC 287 (Ch) (17 February 2011)

The anti-suit injunction should not be discharged because the former owners have a history of vexatious and duplicative litigation, there is a real and ongoing threat of foreign proceedings in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses, and the injunction is necessary to protect the integrity of the English proceedings. Amendments to the pleadings in both the RBS and Broughton actions are permitted, as they are useful, necessary, and reflect the current state of the dispute. Negative declaratory relief is appropriate given the former owners' conduct and ongoing threats. The applications to strike out or stay the Broughton action are refused.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 287 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Defendant: Thomas O. Hicks; Defendant: George N. Gillett; Defendant: Kop Football (Cayman) Limited; Defendant: Kop Football (Holdings) Limited; Defendant: Kop Football Limited; Claimant: Kop Football Limited; Claimant: Kop Football (Holdings) Limited; Claimant: Martin Broughton; Defendant: George N. Gillet; Defendant: UKSV Holdings Company Limited; Defendant: Kop Investment LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial/chancery Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) With Multiple Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications to amend pleadings in both actions granted; anti-suit injunction continued; applications to strike out or stay refused; clarifications made regarding assistance to Mill Financial and US procedural applications.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Negative Declaratory Relief, Jurisdiction Clauses, Corporate Governance, Director Duties, Sale of Business, Abuse of Process
Commercial Law Company Law Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Negative Declaratory Relief Jurisdiction Clauses Corporate Governance +3 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Claimant

Thomas O. Hicks

Defendant

George N. Gillett

Defendant

Kop Football (Cayman) Limited

Defendant

Kop Football (Holdings) Limited

Defendant

Kop Football Limited

Defendant

Kop Football Limited

Claimant

Kop Football (Holdings) Limited

Claimant

Martin Broughton

Claimant

George N. Gillet

Defendant

UKSV Holdings Company Limited

Defendant

Kop Investment LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/chancery Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc) With Multiple Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to discharge or vary an anti-suit injunction restraining foreign proceedings
  2. 2 Whether to permit amendments to pleadings for negative declaratory relief
  3. 3 Whether to strike out or stay the Broughton action

Ratio Decidendi

The anti-suit injunction should not be discharged because the former owners have a history of vexatious and duplicative litigation, there is a real and ongoing threat of foreign proceedings in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses, and the injunction is necessary to protect the integrity of the English proceedings. Amendments to the pleadings in both the RBS and Broughton actions are permitted, as they are useful, necessary, and reflect the current state of the dispute. Negative declaratory relief is appropriate given the former owners' conduct and ongoing threats. The applications to strike out or stay the Broughton action are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend pleadings in both actions granted; anti-suit injunction continued; applications to strike out or stay refused; clarifications made regarding assistance to Mill Financial and US procedural applications.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend pleadings in the RBS and Broughton actions.
  • Anti-suit injunction continued, with clarification that it does not prevent assistance to Mill Financial or applications under US Title 28 section 1782.