The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks & Ors

The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc v Hicks & Ors

The amendments to the RBS and Broughton actions are allowed as negative declaratory relief is useful and justified given the former owners' conduct and ongoing threat of foreign proceedings. The anti-suit injunction is not discharged, as there remains a real threat of proceedings abroad breaching exclusive jurisdiction clauses and causing procedural injustice. The injunction is varied to permit applications under USC 1782 and assistance to Mill Financial, subject to notice. Applications to strike out or stay are dismissed; NESV is joined as a party; permission to serve Investment out of jurisdiction is unnecessary.

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: UKSV Holdings Company Limited; Defendant: Kop Investment LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc), Applications to Amend, Strike Out, Discharge/modify Injunctions
Outcome
Amendments to claims allowed; anti-suit injunction continued and varied; applications to strike out/stay dismissed; NESV joined; permission to serve Investment out of jurisdiction dismissed as unnecessary.
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Negative Declaratory Relief, Director Duties, Corporate Governance, Sale of Assets, Conspiracy, Fiduciary Duties
Commercial Law Company Law Civil Procedure Anti Suit Injunctions Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Negative Declaratory Relief Director Duties 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

UKSV Holdings Company Limited

Defendant

Kop Investment LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation / Case Management Conference (cmc), Applications to Amend, Strike Out, Discharge/modify Injunctions

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the RBS and Broughton actions are allowed as negative declaratory relief is useful and justified given the former owners' conduct and ongoing threat of foreign proceedings. The anti-suit injunction is not discharged, as there remains a real threat of proceedings abroad breaching exclusive jurisdiction clauses and causing procedural injustice. The injunction is varied to permit applications under USC 1782 and assistance to Mill Financial, subject to notice. Applications to strike out or stay are dismissed; NESV is joined as a party; permission to serve Investment out of jurisdiction is unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Amendments to claims allowed; anti-suit injunction continued and varied; applications to strike out/stay dismissed; NESV joined; permission to serve Investment out of jurisdiction dismissed as unnecessary.

Orders

  • Amendments to RBS and Broughton actions allowed.
  • Anti-suit injunction continued, not discharged.