Crown Dilmun and Another v Sutton and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Peter Smith,MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH
Judgment Date01 April 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWHC 821 (Ch),[2004] EWHC 52 (Ch)
CourtChancery Division
Docket NumberCase No HC 03 C00582,Case No: HC03C005582
Date01 April 2004
Between:
(1) Crown Dilmun
(2) Dilmun Investments Limited
Claimants
and
(1) Nicholas Sutton
(2) Fulham River Projects Limited
Defendants

[2004] EWHC 52 (Ch)

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith

Case No: HC03C005582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Mr C Hollander QC (instructed by S J Berwin) for the Claimants

Mr R Knowles QC and Mr D Alexander (instructed by Ferguson) for the First Defendant

Mr A Hochhauser QC and Mr M Griffiths (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the Second Defendant

Hearing dates: 21 st, 24 th, 25 th, 26 th, 27 th, 28 th November and

1

st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th December 2003

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Justice Peter Smith

Mr Justice Peter Smith:

INTRODUCTION

Mr Justice Peter Smith
1

This Judgment arises out of the trial of the above action. The first Claimant ("CD") is a property developer. The Second Claimant ("DIL") acts as a service company in the group of which CD and DIL are subsidiaries. CD is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Dilmun (UK) Holdings Plc ("CDH") and CD's only director is CDH.

2

The First Defendant Mr Sutton was employed by DIL (formerly known as Dilmun Investment and Advisers Limited) under a written service agreement dated 4 th October 1994 ("the Service Agreement") originally as an Assistant Director but subsequently as a Director. Part of his responsibilities required him to act as a Director of CD. The terms of the service contract will be set out further in this Judgment.

3

Mr Sutton was also a Director of DIL and CDH.

4

The group of the UK companies are part of the Bahrain International Bank (EC) ("BIB") group of companies. Placed between BIB and CD (UK) Holdings Plc is a further company Crown Dilmun Holdings (CI) Limited, a company registered in Jersey. One hundred percent of its shareholding was held by BIB. The latter provided equity investment of £60 million, ultimately to enable CD to acquire properties within the United Kingdom. The corporate structure, is in cases like this, as usual, complicated and I append to this Judgment a copy of the corporate structure.

5

It will be seen that one of the parallel strands of the structure involves serviced apartments through Crown Dilmun Serviced Apartments (CI) Limited (another Jersey registered company) which itself had a fifty percent holding in Ascott Dilmun Holdings Limited another Jersey company. The other fifty percent was owned by the Ascott group, whose ultimate beneficial ownership, as I understand the position, is in Singapore. Both CD and Ascott Dilmun have a large number of subsidiaries as shown in the attached copy of the corporate structure. The subsidiaries generally relate to separate developments; the policy being that where a development is required it is taken in a separate company, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), solely for the purposes of that particular development. The reasons for this are readily understood and do not need setting out in this Judgment.

6

The Second Defendant was incorporated on 5 th September 2002. It was incorporated by a firm of solicitors Forsters. A number of partners within Forsters were involved in the matters the subject matter of this dispute, the Senior Partner being Ms Sophie Hamilton ("Ms Hamilton"). The Second Defendant ("FRP") had at all material times only one director namely Ms Hamilton.

7

Its total issued share capital is one hundred shares of £1.00 each. Of those shares fifty-one A shares were issued to a company Worldmade Limited ("WL") and forty-nine B shares were issued to Ottoman Homes Limited ("Ottoman"). Ottoman is a one hundred percent subsidiary of Imperial Property Company Holdings ("IHL"). IHL's shares are owned equally between Mr Sutton and his wife.

8

Worldmade is a company through which a Mr Mark Neil Steinberg, a Mr Steven Collins and a Mr Terence Cole in effect invested in FRP. Mr Cole and Mr Steinberg have been established together in the property business for approximately twenty-five years and have created a substantial property investment and development group. Together with Mr Collins they own a number of companies that have been used as vehicles for holding interests in a number of property developments and transactions. They have known Mr Sutton since 2001 (they did some transactions with him then). They understood him (as indeed is the case) to be well known in the property world, enjoying a high reputation and further he was voted Young Property Personality for 2002.

9

The claim arises out of a contract ("The Agreement") dated 18 th September 2002 and made between (1) Fulham Stadium Limited ("the Seller"), (2) Harrods Holdings Limited ("the Seller's Guarantor") and (3) FRP.

10

That is a conditional contract whereby Fulham Stadium Limited agreed to sell the property known as Craven Cottage Football Stadium, Stevenage Road, London SW6 to FRP for £50 million exclusive of VAT plus an Overage Payment (if any) exclusive of VAT.

11

That contract is a conditional contract whereby (clause 2.1) the entry into force of the obligations (other than specified ones) is conditional upon the Unconditional Date occurring on or before the Termination Date. The unconditional date is the latest of a number of dates all linked to the obtaining of a satisfactory Planning Permission as defined in the Agreement. A satisfactory planning permission, means a planning permission which is not subject to an onerous condition steta in the The development is the most controversial aspect, being the demolition of the existing Football Stadium and other buildings on the site and the construction thereon of residential units comprising not less than two hundred and forty thousand square feet of net saleable space.

12

An unusually large deposit of £15 million was payable on the signing of the Agreement.

13

The litigation arises out of FRP entering into the Agreement. I will set out the allegations in the pleadings further in this Judgment. For present purposes the allegation is that the opportunity to enter into the Agreement conferred on FRP was obtained by Mr Sutton, CD contends, in breach of the fiduciary duties he owed as a director to the Claimants, CDH and the other companies in the group and in breach of his fiduciary duty. It was an opportunity, which instead of seeking to obtain for the benefit of CD, he caused to be diverted to FRP.

14

As I shall set out further in this Judgment, FRP, which had no capital at all beyond its £100.00 issued share capital, was able to enter into the Agreement by reason of a loan made to it of £15 million from the Irish Nationwide Building Society. That loan was secured through the efforts of Mr Steinberg. In addition to that loan WL lent an interest free loan to FRP of £1.7 million, as to £1.3 million being provided on the date of the shareholders agreement, which was entered into between WL (1) and Ottoman (2) on 18 th September 2002, the same date as the Agreement. Mr Sutton contributed £100,000.00 as an interest free loan to FRP as his contribution.

15

The claims against Mr Sutton are damages for breach of contract and fiduciary duty and alternatively, at the Claimants' option, a claim that he is liable to account to them for any profits made from the Agreement or alternatively that the Claimants are entitled to elect that he holds the benefit of the Agreement on constructive trust.

16

As against FRP the allegation against it is a claim for damages in respect of dishonest assistance in breach of trust and/or knowing receipt of trust property with the same alternatives as are sought against Mr Sutton.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

17

I should at this stage say something about the witnesses who appeared before me. The Claimants called four witnesses. First there was Mark Minashi who is the finance director of CD, having held that post since August 1999. Initially, he reported to Mr Sutton. The second witness called was Ibrahim Aladwani. He is the managing director of DIL, a post which he occupied since 24 th June 2002. His role was somewhat controversial. He was "parachuted" into that post on 24 th June 2002 with little or no warning to Mr Sutton and all of the other people concerned in CD. His appointment certainly caused friction between the Claimants and Mr Sutton and it is quite clear that there was, what might neutrally be described as, an initial antipathy as between Mr Aladwani and Mr Sutton, which developed over the period until November 2002 to outright hostility. The third witness called by the Claimants was Simon Gawthorpe, who is a development director, employed by CD. I should say that virtually everybody concerned with the company appears to have been called a director, but the only actual relevant holders of the office of director at all relevant times were Mr Sutton, Mr Aladwani (who was a director of Dilmun Holdings) and Mr Gawthorpe (who was a director of CDH). Mr Gawthorpe was initially a project management director having been responsible for that role since April 2001 and is now a development director of CD. He reported too Mr Sutton and he was a close friend and confidant of Mr Sutton.

18

The fourth witness called by the Claimant was Stephen Mallet, a director of DIL, having joined the board on 15 th October 1997. The decision of the Claimants to call him arose as a result of a ruling I made on the pleadings during the course of the trial, to which I shall make reference further in this Judgment.

19

Mr Sutton gave evidence for himself. Mr Steinberg gave evidence for FRP as did Ms Hamilton. In addition another partner in Forsters, Michael David Cunliffe, was called on behalf of FRP as a result of evidence Mr Sutton gave during his cross...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and 75 ors. v Yuri Privalov and 28 ors
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 10 December 2010
    ...that there is no such remedy" (at p.668). The position under English law was not then firmly established: in Crown Dilman v Sutton, [2004] BCLC 468 at para 11, Peter Smith J recognised that there was "limited English authority providing guidance about the rules applicable in a case where pr......
  • Zambia v Meer Care and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 June 2007
    ...This accords with the observations of Lord Brown Wilkinson in Guinness Plc v Saunders [1990] 2 WLR 324 HL (see Crown Dilmun v Sutton [2004] 1 BCLC 468 at page 517). Whatever sympathies the authors of Goff and Jones “The Law of Restitution” and I might have expressed as regards giving credi......
  • Roadchef (Employee Benefits Trustees) Ltd v Timothy Ingram Hill and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 January 2014
    ...(above) at 385B-C and 392 G. A company is dishonest where a director, or the controlling will and mind, of the company is dishonest: Crown Dilmun v. Sutton [2004] EWHC 52 (Ch) [2004] 1 BCLC 468 at 168 The normal remedy for dishonest assistance is a personal rather than a proprietary one; ......
  • Quarter Master UK Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Pyke and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 15 July 2004
    ...in Goff and Jones, The Law of Restitution (6 th ed.) at paragraph 33–018. Finally, I have noted the comments in the recent case of Crown Dilmun v Sutton [2004] 1 BCLC 468 at [211] – [213]. 77 In my judgment, the right course for me to adopt on this question of a possible fair allowance for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • RECONFIGURING THE NO CONFLICT RULE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 December 2011
    ...too broad and onerous and too ambiguous. 25[2005] 2 BCLC 91, especially at [40]–[41] and [63]–[68]. 26 See also Crown Dilmun v SuttonUNK[2004] 1 BCLC 468 at [181]; British Midland Tool Ltd v Midland International Tooling LtdUNK[2003] 2 BCLC 523 at [89]. It is not entirely clear whether Arde......
  • Guiding Principles for Directorial Conflicts of Interest: Re Allied Business and Financial Consultants Ltd; O'Donnell v Shanahan
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 74-4, July 2011
    • 1 July 2011
    ...[2000] 2BCLC 734; BallvEden ProjectLtd [2002] 1 BCLC 313; BhullarvBhullar[20 03] EWCA Civ 424; [2 003]2 BCLC 241; Crown D ilmun vSutton [2004] EWHC52 (Ch); [2004] 1BCLC 468; QuarterMasterUKLtd (in liq) vPyke [2004]EWHC 1815 (Ch); [2005]1 BCLC 245.7Two Canadian cases were particularly in£uen......
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...have increasingly affirmed that the ‘no conflict’ duty ceases when the fiduciary relationship is terminated: see Crown Dilmun v Sutton[2004] 1 BCLC 468. 18.10 However, the duty to maintain the client”s confidence, unlike the ‘no conflict’ duty, may persist and often persists after the termi......
  • In Dependence: The Paradox of Professional Independence and Taking Seriously the Vulnerabilities of Lawyers in Large Corporate Law Firms
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Law and Society No. 46-1, March 2019
    • 1 March 2019
    ...SDT Case No. 10722-2011, 11 October 2011, para. 39;Reed v. George Marriott [2009] EWHC 1183 (Admin), para. 46; Crown Dilmun v.Sutton [2004] 1 BCLC 468, para. 118.ß2019 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2019 Cardiff University Law between practitioner and client, `rebalancing' autonomy......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT