Lesperance v Ernestine & Ors (CC 69/2015) [2018] SCSC 8250 (4 September 2018)

Lesperance v Ernestine & Ors (CC 69/2015) [2018] SCSC 8250 (4 September 2018)

There was no evidence that the 3rd Defendant was liable for the balance of SCR 1 million or the promise to release the mortgages, nor that the 1st Defendant was a Director of the 3rd Defendant at the time of the agreement; thus, the claims cannot be sustained.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8250
Parties
Plaintiff: James Lesperance; Defendant: Allan Ernestine; Defendant: Marie-Alice Ernestine; Defendant: Eden Entertainment (rep by Allan Ernestine and Marie-Alice Ernestine in capacity as Director and Shareholder)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
4 September 2018
Case Number
CC 69/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Share Transfer Agreement, Specific Performance, Corporate Veil, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Company Law Share Transfer Agreement Specific Performance Corporate Veil Damages

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

Parties

James Lesperance

Plaintiff

Allan Ernestine

Defendant

Marie-Alice Ernestine

Defendant

Eden Entertainment (rep by Allan Ernestine and Marie-Alice Ernestine in capacity as Director and Shareholder)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd Defendant is liable to pay the balance of SCR 1 million under the share transfer agreement
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to hold the 1st and 2nd Defendants personally liable for the 3rd Defendant's obligations
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the 3rd Defendant was liable for the balance of SCR 1 million or the promise to release the mortgages, nor that the 1st Defendant was a Director of the 3rd Defendant at the time of the agreement; thus, the claims cannot be sustained.

Court Disposition

Plaint dismissed