Ashley & Anor v Jimenez

Ashley & Anor v Jimenez

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Jimenez made false representations to Mr Ashley, knew them to be false, and received the funds as trustee under a Quistclose trust, which he breached. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimants, and the defendant's purported defences were found to be fabrications or unsupported. Judgment on the merits was appropriate, service was properly effected, and alternative service was justified. Costs were awarded to the claimants on the indemnity basis for the service application and on the standard basis for the claim.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Ashley and another; Defendant: Tony Michael Jimenez
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application for Judgment on the Merits
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants on the merits for deceit and breach of Quistclose trust. Costs awarded to claimants. Declarations as to proper service and alternative service granted.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Quistclose Trust, Service of Documents, Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Fraud Trusts Civil Procedure Deceit Quistclose Trust Service of Documents Jurisdiction Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ashley and another

Claimant

Tony Michael Jimenez

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Application for Judgment on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant judgment on the merits in favour of the claimants for deceit and breach of Quistclose trust
  2. 2 Whether service of the application was properly effected on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether alternative service should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Jimenez made false representations to Mr Ashley, knew them to be false, and received the funds as trustee under a Quistclose trust, which he breached. The evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimants, and the defendant's purported defences were found to be fabrications or unsupported. Judgment on the merits was appropriate, service was properly effected, and alternative service was justified. Costs were awarded to the claimants on the indemnity basis for the service application and on the standard basis for the claim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants on the merits for deceit and breach of Quistclose trust. Costs awarded to claimants. Declarations as to proper service and alternative service granted.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimants for the euro equivalent of £3 million plus compound interest.
  • Costs of the claim to claimants, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.