Watkins v Egglishaw [2001] JRC 166 (31 July 2001)

Watkins v Egglishaw [2001] JRC 166 (31 July 2001)

On a true construction of the FSA, the Plaintiffs were each entitled to £400,000 worth of shares, with the percentage to be determined by the actual net profits for the year ended 31st January 1986, valued at eight times net profits. There was an implied warranty by the Defendants that the accounts used for this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] JRC 166
Parties
Plaintiff: William Watkins; Plaintiff: Raymond Connell; Defendant: Richard Egglishaw; Defendant: Philip Egglishaw; Defendant: Terence Jehan; Party to Agreement: Strachan Management Services Limited; Party to Agreement: STR Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
31 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Shareholder Rights, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Implied Warranty, Share Valuation, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Company Law Equity Shareholder Rights Fraudulent Misrepresentation Implied Warranty Share Valuation Breach of Contract

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Watkins

Plaintiff

Raymond Connell

Plaintiff

Richard Egglishaw

Defendant

Philip Egglishaw

Defendant

Terence Jehan

Defendant

Strachan Management Services Limited

Party to Agreement

STR Holdings Limited

Party to Agreement

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the true contractual entitlement of the Plaintiffs to shares in STR Holdings Limited?
  2. 2 Did the Defendants make fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the state of the consolidated accounts of Strachans to 31st January 1986?
  3. 3 Was there an implied warranty as to the accuracy of those accounts, and was it breached?

Ratio Decidendi

On a true construction of the FSA, the Plaintiffs were each entitled to £400,000 worth of shares, with the percentage to be determined by the actual net profits for the year ended 31st January 1986, valued at eight times net profits. There was an implied warranty by the Defendants that the accounts used for this purpose would be substantially accurate. The 22nd March 1986 accounts presented at the 1st April 1986 meeting were the relevant 'final profit figures' for the FSA. The Defendants breached the implied warranty by presenting accounts that materially overstated profits, thereby reducing the Plaintiffs' share entitlements. The Defendants' counterclaim against Mr. Connell failed as he...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs are entitled to be allotted such number of shares in STR Holdings Limited as represent £400,000 worth each, calculated at eight times the true net profits for the year ended 31st January 1986.
  • The Defendants' counterclaim against Mr. Connell is dismissed.