04 December 2008 / Victor Joffe KC , James Mather

Issue: 7348 / Categories: Features , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

The vanishing exception?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Victor Joffe QC & James Mather continue their refl ections on controversial cases on ability to pay

In Giles v Rhind [2003] 1 BCLC 1, [2003] All ER (D) 340 (Oct) the Court of Appeal held that there was an exception to the no reflective loss principle where the defendant had by his own wrongdoing so destroyed or disabled the company that it was unable to pursue its claim against him.

The facts in Giles v Rhind

In breach of his service agreement with the company SHF, D set up a competing company, to which he induced SHF’s major customer to transfer its business. SHF issued proceedings against D, but went into administrative receivership, and was forced to discontinue because it had no funds to provide the security for costs which it was ordered to pay on D’s application.

The claimant, a shareholder in SHF, then brought proceedings against D claiming damages for breach of a shareholders’ agreement to which they were both party. Th e claims included

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

The vanishing exception?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Victor Joffe QC & James Mather continue their refl ections on controversial cases on ability to pay

In Giles v Rhind [2003] 1 BCLC 1, [2003] All ER (D) 340 (Oct) the Court of Appeal held that there was an exception to the no reflective loss principle where the defendant had by his own wrongdoing so destroyed or disabled the company that it was unable to pursue its claim against him.

The facts in Giles v Rhind

In breach of his service agreement with the company SHF, D set up a competing company, to which he induced SHF’s major customer to transfer its business. SHF issued proceedings against D, but went into administrative receivership, and was forced to discontinue because it had no funds to provide the security for costs which it was ordered to pay on D’s application.

The claimant, a shareholder in SHF, then brought proceedings against D claiming damages for breach of a shareholders’ agreement to which they were both party. Th e claims included

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS

NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders

Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed

Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’

NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits

A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’

NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts

Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients

back-to-top-scroll