Gruber & Ors v AIG Management France, SA & Ors, Court of Appeal - Commercial Court, November 09, 2018, [2018] EWHC 3077 (Comm)

Resolution Date:November 09, 2018
Issuing Organization:Commercial Court
Actores:Gruber & Ors v AIG Management France, SA & Ors
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 3077 (Comm)

Case No: CL-2014-000921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building

Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL

Date: Friday 9th November 2018

Before :

Mr Justice Andrew Baker

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dan Oudkerk QC, Amy Rogers, Jamie Susskind (instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP) for the Claimants

Andrew Hunter and Peter Head (instructed by Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP ) for the Defendants

Hearing date: 9th November 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT APPROVED4

Ruling by MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER:

  1. The parties on each side propose that they should be granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order that will now be drawn up by reference to the judgment I have handed down this morning.

  2. In relation to the claimants' application for permission to appeal, that is limited to the dismissal of the claims made in tort against AIG Inc. As Mr Oudkerk QC reminds me, those claims travelled successfully a fair distance towards a favourable conclusion for the claimants. However, they became derailed at the last by my conclusion that, ultimately, and taking account of all the matters that had been relied on by the claimants, they had not proved a necessary state of mind at parent company level that AIG Inc required to have for any of the ways in which the claimants said liability in tort arose.

  3. It seems to me that that is firstly, by nature, very much a decision on the facts by reference to the specifics of the evidence that was before me at trial, and having regard to the gaps in that evidence, such as is highly unlikely to be regarded by the Court of Appeal as a matter for interference. But secondly, in addition, it is a conclusion that I reached, not solely by reference to this, but significantly assisted by the assessment I was able to make, and did make, of the principal witness called by the defendants, Mr Dooley, as a witness, and his sincerity in that regard. It seems to me in those circumstances there is no prospect that the Court of Appeal will feel able or wish to consider interfering with that key conclusion.

  4. So although, as I said, the claims travelled a certain way favourably to the claimants, the fact that they did fail, ultimately, at...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL