|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Silversafe Ltd & Anor v Hood & Ors  EWHC 1849 (Ch) (25 July 2006)
Cite as:  EWHC 1849 (Ch)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| (1) Silversafe Ltd (in liquidation)
(2) Timothy James Bramston
|- and -
|(1) David Hood
(2) Tattershall Inversiones SL
(3) Paula Burnett
(4) Wildtower Ltd
(5) Keepbyte Ltd
(6) Iqbal Public Ltd
Michael Hartman (instructed by ) for the 1st, 4th, 5th & 6th Defendants
Michael Patchett-Joyce (instructed by Sabir selby) for the 2nd Defendant
Hearing dates: 13th July 2006
Crown Copyright ©
Peter Smith J :
(1) The adjourned part of the hearing commenced before Deputy Master Hoffman of an application by the Second Defendant to strike out the balance of claims against it.
(2) To consider the Claimants' application to re-amend the Particulars of Claim.
(3) To consider the Case Management Conference in the light of the above.
(1) to Leapfrog having an invoice value of £15,034,070 plus VAT (£2,630,962) and
(2) to Rascal having an invoice value of £25,775,365 plus VAT (£4,510,689).
INVOLVEMENT OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT
(1) Lightman J appointed Timothy James Bramston as provisional liquidator to the Company.
(2) A freezing order was made on the application of the Company (now in provisional liquidation) against Tattershall as to £1,623,282.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY- SECOND DEFENDANT
APPLICATION TO RE-AMEND
THE CLAIMANTS' CASE
"It seems to me that, subject to particularisation, the pleading is adequate to support an allegation of accountability as a constructive trustee. The facts on which the knowledge allegations are based are matters which entirely concern the Hashims. The bank can obtain such information only by investigation and discovery. I do not accept that the bank has already had so much information about what happened to the money after it left Switzerland that there is nothing more to be found on discovery. It is accepted that a fair amount of information about the movements of the money has not yet been disclosed and no doubt the production of further bank documents will raise more questions. This is, in my view, a case in which the fund is entitled to plead in general terms and to defer particularisation of its case until after discovery: see e.g. Leitch v Abbott (1886) 31 Ch D 374. Of course, by the time the case comes to trial Mrs Hashim will be entitled to full particulars of the detailed allegations on which the fund will rely. But the absence of such particulars is not, in my judgment, a ground striking the claim out now."