Campbell -v- Campbell Longton Ltd Financial Consultants (Jersey) Ltd and FCM Limited [2014] JRC 147 (25 July 2014)

Campbell -v- Campbell Longton Ltd Financial Consultants (Jersey) Ltd and FCM Limited [2014] JRC 147 (25 July 2014)

Richard's application for interim injunctions was dismissed because his own pleaded case excluded any claim over monies used to repay the mother's loan, and there was no evidence of dissipation. The conduct of Richard and his advisers was sufficiently unreasonable to justify an order for indemnity costs.

Citation
[2014] JRC 147
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard; First Defendant: Robert; Second Defendant: Longton Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions and Costs
Outcome
application dismissed; indemnity costs awarded against Richard
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Interim Injunctions, Costs, Beneficial Ownership, Asset Dissipation
Trusts Company Law Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Interim Injunctions Costs Beneficial Ownership Asset Dissipation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard

Plaintiff

Robert

First Defendant

Longton Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should be granted to restrain Robert from dealing with assets and interest payments from Longton Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Whether Richard has a proprietary claim over monies used to repay the mother's loan
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against Richard

Ratio Decidendi

Richard's application for interim injunctions was dismissed because his own pleaded case excluded any claim over monies used to repay the mother's loan, and there was no evidence of dissipation. The conduct of Richard and his advisers was sufficiently unreasonable to justify an order for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; indemnity costs awarded against Richard

Orders

  • Application for interim injunctions dismissed
  • Indemnity costs awarded to Robert and parties cited