News Publication Date: 02 February 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN
CIVIL DIVISION
ORDINARY PROCEDURE
Between:
INTERRETIRE LIMITED Claimant
And
HSBC SECURITIES SERVICES (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED Defendant
And
IN THE MATTER of the Defendant’s Application Notice dated 21 December 2011
Judgment Summary issued by the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the judgment of the court. It does not form part of the judgment. The judgment itself is the only
authoritative document. The full judgment is available at www.judgments.im.
On the 2 February 2012 His Honour Deemster Doyle First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls sitting in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division Ordinary Procedure delivered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s Application Notice dated the 21 December 2011 which sought an order that the Claimant’s claim be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or that summary judgment be given in favour of the Defendant on the grounds that the Claimant did not have any real prospect of succeeding on its claim and that there were no other compelling reasons why the case should be disposed of at trial.
The Claimant’s claim is for damages or equitable compensation for breach of duty (in contract, tort and/or equity) and/or misrepresentation. The Claimant said that at the heart of the case is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant owed it a duty to act competently as trustee of the InterRetire Trust. The Claimant said that the duty is alleged to arise in contract (as an implied term) in tort and/or in equity. The Claimant said that a separate but
associated cause of action arose in misrepresentation as a result of the Defendant having held itself out as being expert in the administration of international retirement benefit schemes and as having the systems capable of dealing with numerous and large international pension schemes which the Claimant said was false.
The Claimant said that its aggregate losses caused by the Defendant’s failings were in excess of £49,523,880.00. The Defendant denies the claim.
The Deemster was persuaded that it would be quite wrong in the circumstances of this complex case to strike any of the claims out or to grant summary judgment in respect of any of the claims in favour of the Defendant. The Deemster stated that the claims must be determined at trial after due consideration of the evidence, legal arguments and the relevant law. The Deemster stated that the case had however to be properly and fully pleaded by the Claimant.
The Deemster, applying the relevant legal test, was not persuaded that the claims in contract (implied term), tort, misrepresentation and equity were bound to fail or that they had no realistic prospects of success. The Deemster was not persuaded that the case was not fit for trial at all noting that there were plainly arguments and evidence that should be considered at trial and issues determined after full consideration involving reflection on the complex legal arguments and evidence that will be presented at trial. The Deemster did not say that the Claimant would win at trial but was persuaded that the claims were arguable.
The Deemster felt that in the circumstances of the case it would be a disproportionate exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to strike out the claim. The Deemster held that a proportionate response would be to deal with the concerns by ordering the Claimant to further amend its pleading and made orders accordingly.