Adrian Lang

Following an earlier endorsement in a commercial dispute, the court issued a corrigendum to correct two matters raised by counsel.

First, the formal endorsement had omitted the judge’s decision striking a specific paragraph of the applicants’ amended amended application, which had previously been recorded only in a handwritten endorsement.

Second, the reasons incorrectly stated that a newly constituted board had approved the sale of a 10% share in a corporation to a respondent, when in fact the scheduled board meeting had not proceeded because the application had already been commenced.

The court clarified both issues and amended the reasons accordingly.

The applicants brought an oppression application regarding a family investment company, Naim Investments Limited.

They alleged that the proposed sale of a 10% shareholding by an estate to a third party, Dr. Low, was a disguised sale to a rival family branch that would breach an unwritten control agreement and a written ownership restriction agreement.

The court found no evidence of a control agreement, determined that Dr. Low was an arm's length purchaser, and concluded that the election of a new board to approve the sale was a proper exercise of corporate governance to resolve a deadlock.

The application was dismissed with costs.

A bank sought to recover approximately USD $5.4 million under guarantees related to credit facilities advanced to a UAE construction entity and alleged that settlement proceeds from unrelated international litigation were fraudulently conveyed to affiliated corporations to defeat its claim.

The plaintiff also sought to add numerous additional corporate and individual defendants, rely on the discoverability doctrine and misnomer exceptions to the Limitations Act, and pierce the corporate veil on the basis of a common enterprise among related companies.

The court held that most proposed defendants could not be added because the claims were statute‑barred and the discoverability doctrine did not apply due to the plaintiff’s lack of diligence in identifying corporate entities earlier in the litigation.

Although one entity was permitted to be added due to misnomer, the court found no fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and declined to pierce the corporate veil, emphasizing the principle of separate corporate personality.

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a costs order awarding substantial indemnity costs against it after its unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion involved a dispute over an alleged energy supply contract and claims of overcharging, where the plaintiff’s affidavit evidence conflicted with recorded telephone evidence and cross-examination testimony.

The motions judge had found the plaintiff acted unreasonably by bringing the summary judgment motion prematurely and by advancing misleading and contradictory affidavit evidence, warranting substantial indemnity costs under Rules 20.06 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On the leave motion, the court held the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria in Rule 62.02(4) because there was no conflicting authority and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs ruling.

Leave to appeal the costs order was therefore refused.