Mr Wilson (who appeared in person) was held liable to account for profits received by a company called Nemesis Ltd, which he controlled. The dishonest assistant was himself in a position to receive the profit personally, which he chose not to receive, but diverted elsewhere. He was liable as a dishonest assistant: ‘Mr Wilson submitted that neither he nor Mr Coker had personally received any part of the profit in relation to transactions 17 and 18. He submitted that therefore they should not be held liable to account for those profits. He made the same submission in relation to the profit made on transactions 19 and 20. So far as transactions 17 and 18 are concerned, the submission misses the point. As a result of the breach by Mr Coker of his fiduciary duty owed to Comax, in which breach Mr Wilson knowingly assisted, they were in a position to receive the proceeds of the sales to Lombard in respect of transactions 17 and 18. They chose so to arrange their affairs, that they did not receive those proceeds themselves, but those proceeds were received first by Copease UK Ltd and then, as to the vast majority, by Nemesis. They cannot by so arranging their affairs avoid the liability which otherwise rests upon them.’
Judges:
HH Judge Seymour QC
Citations:
Unreported 21 June 2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.230348