Ogden -v- Voice Commerce Group Limited [2015] JRC 041 (20 February 2015)

Ogden -v- Voice Commerce Group Limited [2015] JRC 041 (20 February 2015)

The interim injunction was discharged because Mr Ogden failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including his own conduct and admissions inconsistent with his claim to be an employee. There was no serious issue to be tried regarding his employment status, and the only relief sought was the interim injunction, which could not be justified on the facts.

Citation
[2015] JRC 041
Parties
Plaintiff: Jonathan Nicholas Ogden (Nick Ogden); Defendant: Voice Commerce
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Interim Injunction
Outcome
Order of Justice dismissed; interim injunction discharged and not re-imposed; costs to be determined later.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Share Transfer, Interim Injunction, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure, Employment Termination, Valuation of Shares
Company Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Compulsory Share Transfer Interim Injunction Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Employment Termination Valuation of Shares

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Nicholas Ogden (Nick Ogden)

Plaintiff

Voice Commerce

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was still an employee for the purposes of resisting compulsory share transfer under the articles of association
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff breached the duty of full and frank disclosure in obtaining the ex parte injunction
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious issue to be tried justifying the continuation or re-imposition of the interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction was discharged because Mr Ogden failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including his own conduct and admissions inconsistent with his claim to be an employee. There was no serious issue to be tried regarding his employment status, and the only relief sought was the interim injunction, which could not be justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Order of Justice dismissed; interim injunction discharged and not re-imposed; costs to be determined later.

Orders

  • Interim injunction discharged
  • Order of Justice dismissed