The Supreme Court of Gibraltar this week found in favour of our clients and dismissed an application by the defendants to strike out our clients’ claim against them on all three grounds relied upon by the defendants.  Our clients’ claims - which, after this week’s success, will now continue against Hassans law firm and two of Hassans’ partners - are premised on allegations of dishonest assistance.  At trial, the court will ultimately decide whether Hassans and the named partners dishonestly (and with full knowledge of the circumstances) assisted one of our clients’ former directors, Joseph Ackerman, unilaterally and fraudulently - without the knowledge and consent of his co-director, Naomi Ackerman – to effect loans on uncommercial terms from their subsidiaries to other entities in which Mr Ackerman had a personal interest in breach of his fiduciary duties to our clients.     In reaching its decision to dismiss the defendants’ strike out application, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar grappled with the thorny and very much current issue of when a claim involving allegations of fraud is time-barred.  The judgment is of relevance to English practitioners as the relevant provisions of the Gibraltar legislation mirror section 32(1)(a) of the English Limitation Act 1980:  the provision which postpones the limitation period in cases of fraud.

Our insight into a recent judgment of the Court of Appeal:  the judgment provides valuable analysis from the Court of Appeal as to the legal principles and the policy considerations around what constitutes an abuse of process as well as a warning as to the limits to a party’s entitlement to appeal as of right in contempt matters.

The High Court recently considered the termination of an aircraft lease to purchase contract between OCA and Novans (an aircraft broking and consultancy company). In finding for the Claimant, the judgment considers the thorny contractual issues of repudiatory breach, contractual suspension, unjust enrichment and interpretation, all against the backdrop of a contract drafted without the benefit of legal advice.  The Defendant terminated the contract for non payment of an invoice on the grounds that the Claimant’s non payment had amounted to a repudiatory breach. OCA subsequently brought its claim saying that this purported termination was in and of itself a breach. It also brought an alternative claim in unjust enrichment seeking restitution in relation to the monies it had paid over under the contract prior to the termination. The Defendant counterclaimed that the Claimant’s failure to pay the disputed invoice had amounted to a repudiation of the agreement that the Defendant had duly accepted. Written by Rachel Ziegler, partner and Lex Townsley, trainee solicitor, and first published by LexisPSL on 3 February 2022 Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP [2022] EWHC 88 (Comm)