COVALIS CAPITAL LP & Anor v BANCO BTG PACTUAL SA
1. THE MASTER: At the moment, I am not going to order an issue for disclosure in terms of issue 18, either as formulated in the DRD that is actually before me or on the basis of what Ms Hurst was formulating (it seemed to me somewhat on the hoof). What she suggested was, "Did the RWE plan become out...
2 min de lecture · 396 mots
1. THE MASTER: At the moment, I am not going to order an issue for disclosure in terms of issue 18, either as formulated in the DRD that is actually before me or on the basis of what Ms Hurst was formulating (it seemed to me somewhat on the hoof). What she suggested was, "Did the RWE plan become out of date before redemption of the fund and, if so, when?" or something along those lines. 2. I am not persuaded that it is right to order disclosure in those terms because the parties have agreed — and it seems to me properly agreed — that we will have a trial in two stages with the issue of liability only (the breach of confidence trial) being tried at the first hearing. If one starts bringing issues about the staleness of the RWE plan or becoming out of date before redemption of the fund or when the confidentiality ceased, for the purposes of formulating the List of issues for Disclosure, it seems to me one starts to blur the different questions of liability versus causation and loss, which should be kept separate. If one does not do that, one starts to get into the realm where any savings from hiving off the issues for the liability trial as agreed between the parties begins to be undermined, so that seems to me the wrong way to go. 3. So, for the reasons that have been submitted to me by Ms Day, I prefer the view that issues 1 to 29 are properly issues for the first-stage trial and 30 and 31 (and interest in so far as it is interest relating to the breach of confidence claim) will be issues only for stage 2. So, issues 30 and 31 will be reserved for the second stage. Therefore, for the reasons I have just set out, I am not persuaded that Issue 18 is a proper issue to be included in the List of Issues for Disclosure at the moment. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol BS32 4NE Email: [email protected] This transcript has been approved by the Judge
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...