Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA and Others v Akers and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1426 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2013/2307 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1426
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE EDER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Sharp
Case No: A2/2013/2307
William Trower QC (instructed by Chadbourne and Parke (London) LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the order of Eder J, made on 26 July 2013, by which the applicants were ordered to give third-party disclosure pursuant to CPR 31.17 of five reports prepared by Grant Thornton, a firm of accountants, on the instructions of the applicants, Mr Akers and Mr McDonald.
The applicants, who are partners in Grant Thornton, are the joint liquidators of Oscatello Investments Ltd. Oscatello form part of a complex group of companies, which were ultimately controlled by two other companies in their capacity as joint trustees of the Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust ("TDT"). The main beneficiaries of the TDT were Mr Robert Tchenguiz, his children, and remoter issue. The estimated shortfall to meet the claims of the creditors is in excess of £1.9 billion. The judge said that the liquidation of the Oscatello companies had been exceptionally complex and there had been worldwide and hard-fought litigation in London, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands, in which the Oscatello companies have frequently found themselves on the other side of litigation to parties associated with Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz.
The application for disclosure was made in litigation brought by the respondents and by Robert Tchenguiz and R20 Ltd against the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The background to it is set out in the judgement of Eder J and in the decision of the Divisional Court, [2012] EWHC 2254. In brief summary, it arises out of what is said to be the unlawful action of the SFO in its entry, search and seizure at the business premises of Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, and the companies and trusts through which they carried on their business, and in the connected arrests and investigations which...
To continue reading
Request your trial