Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley [2008] JCA 146 (03 September 2008)

Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley [2008] JCA 146 (03 September 2008)

The Court of Appeal upheld the Royal Court's findings that there was no conspiracy or unlawful interference, that Bow Valley's breach of the confidentiality agreement caused no actionable loss except for limited misuse of confidential information, and that Pell Frischmann's repudiation of the tripartite contract released Bow Valley from obligations not to approach NIOC. Damages were properly assessed at £500,000 for breach of confidence, with no basis for increasing the award or granting compound interest.

Citation
[2008] JCA 146
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Pell Frischmann Engineering Limited; Defendant/respondent: Bow Valley Iran Limited (Formerly known as Balal Development Company Limited); Defendant/respondent: Bow Valley Energy Limited; Defendant/respondent: P T Bakrie Interinvestindo; Defendant/respondent: Bow Valley International (Jersey) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; Royal Court's judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidentiality Agreement, Conspiracy, Inducing Breach of Contract, Wrongful Interference, Deceit, Damages Assessment
Contract Law Tort Law Confidentiality Commercial Law Breach of Confidentiality Agreement Conspiracy Inducing Breach of Contract Wrongful Interference +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pell Frischmann Engineering Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Bow Valley Iran Limited (Formerly known as Balal Development Company Limited)

Defendant/respondent

Bow Valley Energy Limited

Defendant/respondent

P T Bakrie Interinvestindo

Defendant/respondent

Bow Valley International (Jersey) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bow Valley breached the confidentiality agreement with Pell Frischmann
  2. 2 Whether Bow Valley and Bakrie conspired to deprive Pell Frischmann of the contract
  3. 3 Whether Pell Frischmann suffered loss as a result of alleged breaches

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the Royal Court's findings that there was no conspiracy or unlawful interference, that Bow Valley's breach of the confidentiality agreement caused no actionable loss except for limited misuse of confidential information, and that Pell Frischmann's repudiation of the tripartite contract released Bow Valley from obligations not to approach NIOC. Damages were properly assessed at £500,000 for breach of confidence, with no basis for increasing the award or granting compound interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; Royal Court's judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Damages of £500,000 for breach of confidence upheld.
  • No increase in damages or award of compound interest.