Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd (Plaintiff) (Appellant) Williams Furniture Ltd (formerly) (Easterns Ltd) (First Defendant) (Respondent) City Industrial Finance Ltd (Second Defendant) James Peter Grosscurth (Third Defendant) Andreas Demetri (Fourth Defendant) Kenneth Maund (Fifth Defendant) John Sinclair Copeland (Sixth Defendant) Archie Spector (Seventh Defendant) Frank Victor Smith (Eight Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J0731-8 |
| Docket Number | 1969 B No.5821 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 31 July 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J0731-8
Lord Justice Buckley
Lord Justice Goff and
Lord Justisce Waller
(not present when judgment delivered)
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Chancery Division
Group B
(Mr. Justice Foster)
MR. MICHAEL MILLER Q.C. and MR. M.J. ROTH (instructed by Messrs. Sidney Pearlman & Greene, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Appellant).
MR. MARTIN NOURSE Q.C. and MR. G. BRIAN PARKER (instructed by "Messrs. Freshfields, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendants (Respondents).
The judgment I am about to read is the judgment of the court.
Having already decided the merits of this appeal, we now have to determine what remedies the plaintiff is entitled to. We have found that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the first three defendants for conspiracy and against City as a constructive trustee.
We will deal first with the claim in conspiracy. Mr. Miller for Belmont submits that as in the event Maximum was a total loss, having been wound up in a state of complete insolvency, the whole of the £500,000 invested in Maximum by Belmont has been lost as a result of the conspiracy. The wrong suffered by Belmont was, as Mr. Miller submits, that the conspirators caused Belmont to buy Maximum. The purchase was a speculative venture and the loss was foreseeable as at least a possible consequence. The measure of damages should consequently, according to Mr. Miller, be £500,000 less any sums proper to be brought into credit against that amount. Having regard to the ways in which Belmont's case has been pleaded (see in particular paragraph 22 of the statement of claim as amended in green) and presented here and below, Belmont is willing to give credit for the fair value of Maximum at the time of the transaction, although it does not concede that it is legally bound to do so. This would result in a net figure (which is now agreed) of £439,941.
Mr. Nourse on the other hand says that the wrong suffered by Belmont was that it was induced to pay too much for Maximum, and that in assessing the damages account must be taken not only of the fair value of Maximum at the date of the purchase but of any other advantage obtained by Belmont under theagreement. In this connection he submits that the value of Mr. Grosscurth's guarantee must be taken into account as well as any benefits consequent upon City's subscription of new capital in Belmont. He further submits that an inquiry is necessary to ascertain to what extent the collapse of Maximum was foreseeable at the date of the agreement because, as he submits, any damage which was not then reasonably foreseeable cannot be recovered.
In our principal judgments delivered earlier in this appeal certain provisional views were expressed which touched on the question of the measure of damages in this case and the elements to be taken into account in measuring them. Having now heard argument on the subject we have reached the following conclusions.
The loss of the entire investment by Belmont of £500,000 in Maximum was, in our view, a reasonably foreseeable possible consequence of that investment. The fact that Mr. Grosscurth's guarantee of the profits of Maximum might prove to be of no value, as was the case in the event, was also in our view, a reasonably foreseeable possible event. It is for the defendants to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alesco Risk Management Services Ltd v Bishopsgate Insurance Brokers Ltd
...– 573 per HH Judge Jonathan Russen QC, applying the Court of Appeal's judgment in Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393 (pp. 404–405) and contending that Meretz was obiter and contrary to high authority. If a conspiracy is otherwise established, this does ......
-
First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd and Others
...facts on the basis of which the agreed or concerted act is unlawful. They relied on two cases. 150 Belmont Finance v Williams Furniture [1980] 1All ER 393 was a case that concerned an agreement to buy and sell shares which was carried into effect in an unlawful way, the defendants knowing t......
-
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
...has sometimes caused it to be overlooked in this particular context, is Belmont Finance Corporation v. Williams Furniture Ltd (No. 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393, where the plaintiff ("Belmont") was the wholly-owned subsidiary of the second defendant ("City"), which in turn was the wholly-owned sub......
-
Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corporation
... ... Herbert Smith) appeared for the Respondents ... (Holdings) Limited, which was the plaintiff in the action ... 2 The appeal and ... 14 I pause to say two things. First, it is readily intelligible why those advising ... He is the second appellant, and we have been told that, for the ... His personal representatives were added as fifth and sixth defendants by an order to carry on, but ... altogether void and cannot confer rights on third parties; whereas (b) "a transaction which is ... The fourth is raised by the notice of cross-appeal. The last ... to enter into a contract with the defendant company, which had full notice of this ... Vaughan Williams L.J. and Cozens-Hardy L.J. expressly approved the ... stated the relevant principle thus in Belmont Finance v. Williams Furniture (No. 2) (1980) 1 ... ...
-
Hedge Fund Fraud: An English Law Perspective On The Potential Exposure Of Prime Brokers
...2 AC 378. 6 [2002] 2 AC 164. 7 [2006] 1 WLR 1476. 8 [2006] EWCA Civ 1492. 9 Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Limited (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393. 10 Lonrho Plc v Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448. 11 Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. At the time of writing, the House of Lords had......
-
'The receipt of what?': Questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichment.
...[1998] 3 VR 16, 78-9 (Hansen J); Agip [1990] Ch 265, 291 (Millett J). (52) Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd [No 2] [1980] 1 All ER 393, 405 (Buckley L J), citing Russell v Wakefield Waterworks Co (1875) LR 20 Eq 474, 479 (Jessel MR); Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd ......
-
THE EFFECTIVE REACH OF CHOICE OF LAW AGREEMENTS
...Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd[1979] Ch 250 (CA); Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)[1980] 1 All ER 393 (CA); Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts[1987] 2 WLR 1192. 30 See, for example, Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin[2002] CLC 322 where the same a......
-
Table of cases
...[2000] N.B.J. No. 70 (C.A.) .......................................261, 262 Belmont Finance Corp. Ltd. v. Williams Furniture (No. 2), [1980] 1 All E.R. 393 (C.A.) ........................................................................ 231 Bence v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1997), 157 Sa......
-
THE RATIONALISATION OF DIRECTORS’ DUTIES IN SINGAPORE
...different today, see Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver[1967] 2 AC 134; Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)[1980] 1 All ER 393 at 405 (per Buckley LJ); In re Duckwari Plc[1999] Ch 253 at 262 (per Nourse LJ); See also L S Sealy, “The Director as Trustee”[1967] CLJ 83. 10......