BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> JD Wetherspoon Plc v Harris & Ors [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch) (01 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/1088.html Cite as: [2013] WLR 3296, [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch), [2013] 1 WLR 3296, [2013] WLR(D) 159 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary: [2013] WLR(D) 159] [Buy ICLR report: [2013] 1 WLR 3296] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
JD WETHERSPOON PLC |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) JASON HARRIS (2) FIRST LONDON ESTATES LIMITED (3) WING PROPERTIES LIMITED (4) FIRST LONDON HOLDINGS LIMITED |
Defendants |
____________________
Mr John Wardell QC and Mr Simon Colton (instructed by K&L Gates LLP) for the 1st Defendant
Mr David Wolfson QC (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants
Hearing dates: 16 April 2013
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Sir Terence Etherton, Chancellor:
The claims
"Van de Berg & Co will be looking for a fee for the introduction of this freehold investment equating to 1% of the purchase price including VAT. We will, obviously, not be looking for a letting fee and I trust you will find this to be in order".
The summary judgment applications
"30-078 The finding of dishonesty depends on how precisely he knew the facts which amounted to the breach of trust, and the extent to which his assistance in the transaction involved a commercially unacceptable risk of knowingly implicating himself in the trustee's breach. For this purpose, knowledge and a deliberate choice by the defendant not to confirm his suspicions are treated alike. A negligent or incompetent failure to realise that the transaction was unlawful is not enough.
The defendant need not appreciate the precise legal significance of the transaction as amounting to a breach of trust. It is enough that he realises that the person whom he assists is misappropriating money over which he does not have a right of free disposal. But he must have some suspicion about the particular transactions to which he gives his assistance. A general suspicion, for example, that the transaction is of a kind consistent with possible money laundering is not direct enough to support a finding of dishonesty."
"5.2 JDW is not (and I am not) making any allegation of dishonesty against Mr Harris or First London companies in respect of any transactions with JDW other than those at Burton and Rotherham. It does not follow from this, however, that I am satisfied in my own mind that the circumstances of those other transactions were proper. …
5.3 I am particularly concerned that in a number of the transactions involving First London companies, those companies dealt with VdB in circumstances which it seems obvious to me gave rise to an acute conflict of interest on the part of VdB, which was at all times JDW's agent and ought to have been acting in JDW's interests, something which I believe must have been apparent to [the first Defendant]. …"
Mr Goldberger's witness statement
"a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally".
"A witness statement should simply cover those issues, but only those issues, on which the party serving the statement wishes that witness to give evidence in chief. Thus it is not, for example, the function of a witness statement to provide a commentary on the documents in the trial bundle, nor to set out quotations from such documents, nor to engage in matters of argument. Witness statements should not deal with other matters merely because they may arise in the course of the trial."