Marlwood Commercial Inc & Ors v Kozeny & Ors

Marlwood Commercial Inc & Ors v Kozeny & Ors

The court determined that the principal issue of attribution of Mr. Lewis' knowledge to the Claimants, and related issues, should be tried in January 2009 as preliminary issues, as their resolution may be determinative of the claims in deceit, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court declined to vary the existing fortification of the freezing orders, finding no sufficient grounds for further security or discharge.

Parties
Claimant: Marlwood Commercial Inc. & Ors; Defendant: Viktor Kozeny & Ors.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Judgment on Trial Management and Fortification of Freezing Order
Outcome
Preliminary issues to be tried in January 2009; no variation to fortification of freezing orders; further directions to be considered.
Legal Topics
Attribution of Knowledge, Freezing Orders, Illegality, Fiduciary Duty, Deceit, Conspiracy, Account of Profits
Commercial Law Company Law Fraud Attribution of Knowledge Freezing Orders Illegality Fiduciary Duty Deceit +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlwood Commercial Inc. & Ors

Claimant

Viktor Kozeny & Ors.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Judgment on Trial Management and Fortification of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Lewis' knowledge of corruption should be attributed to the Claimant companies
  2. 2 Whether claims in deceit, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty are maintainable if Mr. Lewis' knowledge is attributed
  3. 3 Whether Claimants can claim an account of profits without rescinding contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the principal issue of attribution of Mr. Lewis' knowledge to the Claimants, and related issues, should be tried in January 2009 as preliminary issues, as their resolution may be determinative of the claims in deceit, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court declined to vary the existing fortification of the freezing orders, finding no sufficient grounds for further security or discharge.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues to be tried in January 2009; no variation to fortification of freezing orders; further directions to be considered.

Orders

  • January hearing to determine attribution of Mr. Lewis' knowledge and related issues.
  • No further fortification of the undertaking in damages.