Robert Gresham Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corporation

Para

I. INTRODUCTION

1

II. THE FACTS IN MORE DETAIL

23

(a) From the start of the project to June 2007

24

(b) The liability phase of the proceedings

47

(i) The Liability Judgment

47

(ii) The Vos Order

60

(c) Picking up the narrative for the Enquiry phase

63

(i) Mr Gray's share of the Acquisition Strategy SPV

64

(ii) The Klamath Falls arbitration

72

(iii) The creation of Petrosound and the events of 2012 and 2013

74

(d) The Enquiry Hearing and the Enquiry Judgment

80

(i) The management fees 2006 – 2009 and the consultancy fee for 2010

82

(ii) The sums paid under the Klamath Falls Settlement

84

(iii) The Russian Business Assets: Chiloquin's 15% holding of shares in Petrosound

85

(iv) The Russian Business Assets: the VIYM Executives' 15% share of Petrosound

87

(v) The ROW Business Asset: 51% of Opco

88

(vi) Valuation of the Business Assets

90

(vii) Equitable allowance

91

(e) Asplin J's orders

92

(f) The Valuation Hearing and the Valuation Judgment

95

(g) The Valuation Consequentials Rulings and the Arnold Order

100

(h) Mr Gray's Applications D and E and the hearing of the appeals

103

(i) The Grounds of Appeal in summary

105

III. GROUND 1

107

(a) Introduction

107

(b) The scope of the account ordered by Vos J

112

(c) What are the profits for which a defaulting fiduciary is liable to account?

123

(d) The Klamath Falls Settlement

129

(e) Mr Gray's liability to account for asset 1(a): the $3 million derived from the Klamath Falls Settlement

135

(f) Mr Gray's liability to account for assets 1(d) and (e): the Russian Business Assets

141

(g) GEHC's preliminary point: should Mr Gray be permitted to argue Ground 1 at all?

144

(h) Mr Gray's application to amend Ground 1

147

(i) Overall conclusion on Ground 1

154

IV. GROUND 2

155

(a) Introduction

155

(b) The relevant fees

159

(c) The judge's conclusions on “causation”

162

(d) Mr Gray's submissions

166

(e) Do the fees fall within the scope of the Vos Order?

169

(f) Mr Gray's other arguments

174

(g) Conclusion on Ground 2

177

V. GROUNDS 3A.1 AND 3A.2

178

(a) Ground 3A.1

183

(b) Ground 3A.2

194

VI. GROUND 4

202

VII. GROUND 5

207

(a) Introduction

207

(b) The claim for an equitable allowance as presented to Asplin J

218

(c) Did Asplin J misdirect herself on the law?

228

(d) Asplin J's reasons for refusing an equitable allowance

235

(e) Conclusion on Ground 5

240

VIII. GROUNDS 6 AND 9

241

(a) Introduction

241

(i) The Enquiry Judgment

243

(ii) The detailed grounds

271

(iii) Asplin J's finding as to the 2010 agreement

277

(iv) Is it open to Mr Gray to challenge the finding as to the 2010 agreement?

283

(v) The approach on appeal to challenges to findings of fact

289

(b) Ground 6.1

291

(i) Inherent improbabilities

292

(ii) Specific challenge: documents alleged to be window-dressing

298

(c) Ground 6.3

313

(i) Introduction

313

(ii) Adverse inferences

315

(iii) Adverse inference: payments to Russian Scientists

318

(iv) Adverse inference: withheld documents

320

(v) Withheld documents: the confidential fax

322

(vi) Withheld documents: attachment to the Feasibility Study

327

(vii) Withheld documents: emails after 2010

330

(viii) Withheld documents: conclusion

332

(ix) Failure to address issues

334

(x) Failure to address the alleged conspiracy

335

(xi) Failure to address the email dated 30 April 2012

338

(xii) Conclusion on Ground 6.3

342

(d) Grounds 6.4 and 9.2 – 9.3

343

(i) Introduction

343

(ii) Mr Gray's preliminary submissions

346

(iii) The principal grounds

348

(iv) Ladd v Marshall

350

(v) Could Mr Gray have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence?

353

(vi) Would the documents probably have had an important influence on the result of the case?

362

(vii) Documents relevant to the rejection of Professor Abramov's evidence

365

(viii) Documents relevant to viability

374

(ix) Documents relevant to value

380

(x) Documents relevant to the 2010 agreement

387

(xi) Alleged breach of duty to disclose documents

395

(xii) Rosenblatt's knowledge of the documents

404

(xiii) Abuse of process

417

(xiv) Was there any breach of duty?

432

(e) Ground 9.4

436

(f) Conclusions on Grounds 6 and 9

439

IX. GROUNDS 7, 8 and 9.5: THE ORDERS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS ASSETS

440

(a) Ground 7.1: the interest in the VIYM Executives' 15% in Petrosound

442

(b) Grounds 7.2, 8 and 9.5: the ROW Business Asset

448

X. GEHC'S APPEAL

465

XI. SUMMARY, OUTSTANDING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND

476

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

(a) Summary of conclusions on the Grounds of Appeal

476

(b) The outstanding grounds of appeal

487

(c) Concluding observations

490