GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V PHILIP LYONS
| Published date | 01 April 1995 |
| Pages | 399-404 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024861 |
| Date | 01 April 1995 |
| Author | HOBHOUSE STUART‐SMITH,PILL LJJ |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V
PHILIP LYONS
(COURT OF APPEAL) STUART-SMITH, HOBHOUSE (DELIVERING
JUDGMENT) AND PILL LJJ
Date of Judgment: 22nd February, 1995
Reported at:
Times
Law
Reports
28th February, 1995
THE FACTS
On 6th February, 1987, Goldman
Sachs (the plaintiffs in the action
from which this appeal arose and the
respondents to the appeal hereinafter
referred to as the Plaintiffs) pur-
chased US$10m face value worth of
Exxon bonds for which they paid
US$2.26m. They sold them on and a
month later it transpired that the
bonds were forgeries. The London
brokers from whom the Plaintiffs
bought the bonds revealed, following
police enquiries, that they acted on
the instructions of a Mr Philip Lyons
(the Defendant). Mr Lyons was a
Chartered Accountant, and had
delivered the bonds to the clearing
house when the sale was concluded
and he also controlled the Liechten-
stein Anstalt (a form of nominee
trust) to which the purchase price
had been paid. In April 1987 Mr
Lyons was arrested and charged with
forgery and deception.
Shortly after his arrest the Plaintiffs
started civil proceedings in Liechten-
stein against him in order to recover
the purchase monies paid for the for-
geries. Meanwhile, the purchase
monies had moved on from the
account of the Liechtenstein Anstalt,
so in order to protect their position
in the proceedings and maximise
their chances of recovery the Plain-
tiffs applied for and obtained a Mar-
eva injunction against the Defendant
in relation to his UK assets. The
terms of the injunction included the
usual undertaking from the Plaintiffs
to the Defendant to pay any damages
that the court may subsequently
declare the Defendant to have sus-
tained as a result of the Mareva
injunction.
On 22nd April, 1987, the Plaintiffs
commenced the main action (to
which the Mareva related) by writ
against the Defendant but progress in
this action had to be subordinated to
the criminal proceedings being
brought against the Defendant. The
Defendant was convicted on some of
399
To continue reading
Request your trial