Ted Jacobs Engineering Group Inc v Johnston-Marshall and Partners & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSIH_18 (06 February 2014)

Ted Jacobs Engineering Group Inc v Johnston-Marshall and Partners & Ors [2014] ScotCS CSIH_18 (06 February 2014)

The court held that the petitioner had established a prima facie, intelligible and stateable case for recovery of documents under section 1 of the 1972 Act, supported by affidavit evidence and sufficient averments. The existence of the arbitration clause did not preclude the court's jurisdiction to grant interim recovery, especially in relation to fraud or intentional wrongdoing. The Lord Ordinary's exercise of discretion was not flawed, and the confidentiality undertaking was adequate. The cross-appeal on the scope of recovery was refused as the calls were too wide and amounted to fishing.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_18
Parties
Petitioner and Respondent: Ted Jacob Engineering Group Inc; Respondents and Reclaimers: Robert Matthew, Johnson-Marshall and Partners and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Petition for Recovery of Documents Under Section 1 of the Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972 / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Permitting Recovery, With Cross Appeal on Scope of Recovery
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Recovery of Documents, Interim Remedies, Choice of Law, Arbitration and Court Jurisdiction, Fiduciary Duties, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Confidentiality Undertakings
Civil Procedure Private International Law Trusts and Fiduciary Law Contract Law Recovery of Documents Interim Remedies Choice of Law Arbitration and Court Jurisdiction +4 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Jacob Engineering Group Inc

Petitioner and Respondent

Robert Matthew, Johnson-Marshall and Partners and Others

Respondents and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Petition for Recovery of Documents Under Section 1 of the Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972 / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Permitting Recovery, With Cross Appeal on Scope of Recovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner established a prima facie, intelligible and stateable case for recovery of documents under section 1 of the 1972 Act
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in exercising discretion to allow recovery
  3. 3 Whether the confidentiality undertaking was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the petitioner had established a prima facie, intelligible and stateable case for recovery of documents under section 1 of the 1972 Act, supported by affidavit evidence and sufficient averments. The existence of the arbitration clause did not preclude the court's jurisdiction to grant interim recovery, especially in relation to fraud or intentional wrongdoing. The Lord Ordinary's exercise of discretion was not flawed, and the confidentiality undertaking was adequate. The cross-appeal on the scope of recovery was refused as the calls were too wide and amounted to fishing.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Documents recovered by the commissioner (except those excluded by the Lord Ordinary) to be uplifted by the petitioner subject to confidentiality undertakings.
  • Confidentiality undertaking approved as sufficient.