CMC -v- Forster and Ors [2018] JRC 078 (26 April 2018)

CMC -v- Forster and Ors [2018] JRC 078 (26 April 2018)

The plaintiffs must prove the existence and details of the alleged scheme in all its elements; a 10% dip sampling approach to discovery does not suffice for justice in this case given the complexity and disputed existence of the scheme. The Master’s order limiting discovery is overturned and normal discovery should proceed.

Citation
[2018] JRC 078
Parties
First Plaintiff: CMC Holdings Limited; Second Plaintiff: CMC Motors Group Limited; First Defendant: Martin Henry Forster; Second Defendant: RBC Trust Company (International) Limited; Third Defendant: The Regent Trust Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Master's order overturned; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Document Review, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Trusts and Fiduciary Law Discovery Document Review Dishonest Assistance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Vicarious Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CMC Holdings Limited

First Plaintiff

CMC Motors Group Limited

Second Plaintiff

Martin Henry Forster

First Defendant

RBC Trust Company (International) Limited

Second Defendant

The Regent Trust Company Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limited discovery by dip sampling suffices for justice in a complex fiduciary breach case
  2. 2 Whether the Master exercised discretion correctly in limiting discovery
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs must prove existence and details of the alleged scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs must prove the existence and details of the alleged scheme in all its elements; a 10% dip sampling approach to discovery does not suffice for justice in this case given the complexity and disputed existence of the scheme. The Master’s order limiting discovery is overturned and normal discovery should proceed.

Court Disposition

Master's order overturned; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Normal discovery exercise to proceed; 10% dip sampling approach rejected.
  • Costs of appeal and application to be costs in the cause.