Weavering Capital ( Uk ) Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Others (Respondents/Claimants) v Charanpreet Singh Dabhia and Another (Applicants/ Defendants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 1334 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No : A3/2012/1611 (A) & A3/2012/1625(A ) |
| Date | 13 September 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 1334
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE PROUDMAN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Rimer
Case No : A3/2012/1611 (A) & A3/2012/1625(A )
The Applicants appeared in person
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Before the court are applications by Charanpreet Dabhia, the ninth defendant to the claim, and by Edward Platt, the tenth defendant. The claimants are Weavering Capital (UK) Limited, a company in liquidation, and Geoffrey Bouchier and Paul Clark, its joint liquidators.
The trial of the claim occupied 29 days before Proudman J, whose reserved judgment was delivered on 30 May 2012. By paragraph 1 of her order, Proudman J gave judgment for the company in the sum of US $450 million jointly and severally against the first and second defendants, Mr and Mrs Peterson, and against Mr Dabhia and Mr Platt. By paragraph 2, she declared those defendants to be jointly and severally liable to indemnify the company against certain liabilities. By paragraphs 4 to 7 she, in substance, ordered those defendants to repay to the company all salary, bonuses and other benefits they had received from it. By paragraph 30, she ordered them to pay the claimants' costs, save that Mr Platt was only to be liable for 75 per cent of those costs. By paragraphs 31 and 32, she ordered Mr Dabhia and Mr Platt to pay £500,000 and £375,000 respectively on account of such costs, such sums to be paid within 14 days of the date of the order.
By paragraph 37, Proudman J gave an unqualified permission to, amongst others, Mr Dabhia and Mr Platt to appeal against all orders against them. In her written summary reasons for giving permission, the judge said that Mr Dabhia (to whom she mistakenly referred as the sixth defendant) had no real prospect of success, but that for four reasons there were compelling reasons to permit him to appeal, one of which was "huge claim and huge reputational issues"; and that Mr Platt had a real prospect of success on one point only, although in her view it probably did not affect his overall liability.
By paragraph 38, Proudman J fixed the time for appealing to expire at 4pm on 27 June 2012. By paragraph 39, she stayed execution of her orders until then. By paragraph 40, she provided that if notices of appeal were filed in time, accompanied by applications for a continued stay and for expedition of the hearing of such applications, the stay should remain in force until the determination of those applications.
Mr Platt now asks for a continuation of the judge's stay of her order of 30 May until after judgment on the appeals. Mr Dabhia's position is slightly more complicated. He asks for an extension of time for appealing and for what in consequence is the making of a fresh order staying execution of the judge's order. I deal first with Mr Platt's application.
Mr Platt's Appellant's Notice is stated on its face as having been filed on 27 June although the court's seal is dated 28 June. There is, however, no suggestion that the notice was filed out of time. Section 5 applies for a stay of execution of the orders and Section 9, Part C, asks for the expedition of that application. The stay application is supported by Mr Platt's witness statement of 27 June 2012, in which he summarises his assets in paragraphs 4 and 5, the net effect of which is that, even apart from the judgment liabilities, he is probably insolvent on a balance sheet basis but is, by inference, being supported by his wife and family, and he asserts that he does not have assets to discharge the judgment for liabilities. It is entirely unsurprising that he cannot do so. I would be astonished if he could. He points out that, were the judgment to be enforced, he and his wife would lose their home, he would be made bankrupt and would have little prospect of gaining employment in his field of work. He asks for a continuation of the stay ordered by the judge.
Mr Platt has, as I have already indicated to him this morning, done all that was required of him by the judge's order to obtain a continuation of the stay that the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Gul Faraz v Secretary of State for The Home Department
...and there have been a number of recent developments that impact on it. First, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in EM (Eritrea) [2012] EWCA Civ 1334, which in effect rejected as unarguable a case by individuals that their transfer to Italy under Dublin II would violate their Convention 4......