Energenics Holdings Pte. Ltd & Anor v Hazarika
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE PELLING QC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
- Equity and Trusts
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved two main claims by EHPL and NL against a Defendant regarding breach of contract and fiduciary duties. EHPL alleged losses due to the Defendant's failure to transfer shares, while NL claimed dishonest transactions involving the Defendant. The Court examined the Defendant's role, agreements, and financial transactions. It concluded that EHPL did not prove the claimed losses and the Defendant was not shown to be a de facto director or in breach of any fiduciary duties. Thus, both EHPL's and NL's claims were dismissed.
Judgment
HH Judge Pelling QC:
Introduction
In these proceedings as they are now constituted there are two claims advanced by the Claimants being:
A claim by the First Claimant (“EHPL”) for damages for breach of contract; and
A claim by the Second Defendant (“NL”) for an account of profits or equitable compensation in respect of alleged breach of fiduciary duty or dishonest assistance in breach of fiduciary duties or knowing receipt of trust monies.
The trial took place between 7-9 and 12 May 2014. I heard oral evidence called on behalf of the Claimants from Messrs Nayan and Nakul Jagjivan (whose role I describe further below), Mr Stuart Anderson, a director of Energenics Europe Limited (“EEL”), a company that became a subsidiary of EHPL in the circumstances that I explain below, and Mr Douglas Hall FCA who gave some expert accounting evidence concerning EHPL’s damages claim. The Defendant gave evidence in answer to the claims. I had hoped to hand down judgment earlier than this but the parties’ representatives were only available to attend a hearing on 13 June 2014. Although the Judgment is being handed down in Manchester, the trial took place at the Rolls Building in London.
In relation to the claim for damages for breach of contract, the Defendant maintains that it is unsustainable. It is submitted that no evidence in support the wasted expenditure claim has been adduced and thus that element of the claim must fail (something that is not now in dispute), and the alternative way in which the claim is put – which is to claim losses allegedly suffered by EEL as the loss suffered by EHPL – is unsustainable as a matter of law given the way in which the claim has been pleaded and the evidence that has been adduced to prove the claim. This led Mr McCormick QC to submit at the start of the trial that I should strike out this element of the Claim. I ruled that this was not appropriate because there was no formal application for such relief, such an application could have been made many months and indeed years ago but had not been and because it would be better in the circumstances for all the factual evidence to be heard and all relevant findings to be made before reaching a conclusion on the point of law that the Defendant relies on. I reached this conclusion because if I acceded to Mr McCormick’s submission and there was a successful appeal from such a decision, the parties would be faced with the avoidable cost and inconvenience of a further trial, wher