温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/michael-wilson-partners-v-sinclair-ors
点击访问原文链接

Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair Reference: [2012] EWHC 2560 (Comm)

Court: Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court

Judge: Teare J

Date of judgment: 21 Sep 2012 Summary: Arbitration - share ownership - C claims against E in arbitration over shares - award - C's claim dismissed - shares held by tribunal to be beneficially owned by S - C appeals the award - appeal dismissed - C sues S and others in Commercial Court - application by E to strike out or for summary judgment - re-litigation - abuse of process - claim struck out

Download: Download this judgment

Instructing Solicitors: DLA Piper for S; Healys LLP for MWP

Facts The claimant, MWP, brought an arbitration claim against E claiming rights in respect of shares in an AIM listed company. S funded E’s defence of that claim. The arbitrators upheld E’s defence and dismissed MWP’s claim, holding that the shares were beneficially owned by S. MWP unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the Commercial Court. MWP then sued S, a related company, and others in the Commercial Court raising issues the same as or similar to those raised by its arbitration claim against E.

S and the 2nd defendant applied for an order striking out the claim. They also applied for summary judgment on the merits.

The argument that the claim was an abuse was threefold: (a) it was said that there was privity of estate between E and S, such that MWP was estopped from making the same allegations against S that had failed in the arbitration against E; (b) the claim, challenging the tribunal findings, was for that reason an abuse of the court’s process; (c) MWP had obtained ‘satisfaction’ from E, and thereby discharged any liability that S and others might otherwise have had.

Issue (1)  Was there privity of estate so that MWP was estopped?

(2) Is it an abuse of the court’s process for a party (A) who has failed to establish in an arbitration a claim that another (B) has acted in breach of fiduciary duty then to sue a third party (C) in court, alleging that C dishonestly assisted B in committing a breach of fiduciary duty?

(3) Had MWP obtained satisfaction, and thus discharged the cause of action alleged?

(4)  Did the claim in the action have any realistic prospect of success?

Held Striking out the claim,

(1)  MWP was not estopped, as against S, from advancing the allegation rejected by the arbitrators.

(2)  An attempt to re-litigate in court issues which had been adjudicated on, against the claimant, by an arbitral tribunal of competent jurisdiction could however be an abuse. Whether it was such an abuse would depend on the circumstances. In this instance, the claim was an abuse. Bairstow v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] 1 Ch 1 (CA) considered and applied.

(3)  The doctrine of satisfaction had no application where the outcome of the arbitration was the dismissal of MWP’s claim. It is an abuse of language to say that a claimant in an arbitration has received “satisfaction” from the respondent, when the claim has been dismissed.

(4) The court was not satisfied that MWP’s claim had no real prospect of success on its merits.

Comment This seems to be the first decision that it can be an abuse of the court’s process to attempt to re-litigate issues raised before a tribunal, rather than a court, of competent jurisdiction. The issue was raised in the libel action, McKeown v Attheraces Ltd, where the earlier decision was that of a sporting tribunal endorsed by the High Court upon judicial review. In that case, the question was not decided by Tugendhat J, who did not consider that the issues in the two disputes were the same. In the present case, the decision on the abuse of process issue was dispositive, as all the other bases on which S sought to obtain judgment against MWP failed.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录