ANTHONY CARLELLO NORRIS & Ors v PETER DOOLEY
The trial judge's findings on valuation and costs were within his evaluative discretion, and no arguable error of law or approach was demonstrated to justify permission to appeal.
- Parties
- Intended Appellant: Anthony Carlello Norris; Intended Appellant: Oaksmore Portfolios AIFM Limited; Intended Appellant: Gallium Funds Solutions Group Limited; Proposed Respondent: Peter Dooley
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 December 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Company Law Unfair Prejudice Petition / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Prejudice, Valuation of Shares, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anthony Carlello Norris
Intended Appellant
Oaksmore Portfolios AIFM Limited
Intended Appellant
Gallium Funds Solutions Group Limited
Intended Appellant
Peter Dooley
Proposed Respondent
Procedural Posture
Company Law Unfair Prejudice Petition / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in approach to valuation evidence
- 2 Whether the judge's methodology and findings on valuation were open to appeal
- 3 Whether the costs order was within the judge's discretion given lack of transcript
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's findings on valuation and costs were within his evaluative discretion, and no arguable error of law or approach was demonstrated to justify permission to appeal.
Court Disposition
permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Renewed oral application for permission to appeal refused
- Order of Fancourt J affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment