- Cited — Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor 2023-10-04
“…ructive trust because it arises by reason of a pre-existing fiduciary duty owed to HPII (adopting Millett LJ’s categorisation in Paragon Finance plc v Thakerar [1999] 1 All ER 400, 408-409). If that is true of the hotels themselves, then I accept that is also true of their traceable proceeds in Mr Ruhan’s hands.”…”
- Followed — Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor 2023-10-04
“…ed by Millett LJ in the first of the two categories identified in the Paragon Finance case”. The “Paragon Finance case” was Paragon Finance plc v Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400. Millett LJ had there explained the categories to which Chadwick LJ referred as follows at 408-409:…”
- Explained — Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor 2023-10-04
“…olds it upon a trust for the company. He, also, is described as a constructive trustee. But, as Millett LJ explained in Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 408–409, his trusteeship is different in character from that of the stranger. He falls into the category of persons who, in the words of Millett LJ ([1999] …”
- Explained — Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Andrew Joseph Ruhan & Anor 2023-10-04
“…olds it upon a trust for the company. He, also, is described as a constructive trustee. But, as Millett LJ explained in Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 408–409, his trusteeship is different in character from that of the stranger. He falls into the category of persons who, in the words of Millett LJ ([1999] …”
- Cited — Geo-Minerals GT Limited & Anor. v Kevin Downing & Ors. 2023-06-12
“…bmitted that the judge had adopted too broad-brush an analysis, and referred to the judgment of Lord Justice Millett in Paragon Finance Plc v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400, 406, holding that “an amendment to make a new allegation of intentional wrongdoing by pleading fraud, conspiracy to defraud, fraud and breach of trust or inte…”
- Cited — Gemalto Holding BV & Ors. v Infineon Technologies AG & Ors. 2022-06-10
“…h was also consistent with the test for whether the claimant “could with reasonable diligence” have discovered a fraud (Paragon Finance plc v. DB Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 (Paragon), Millett LJ at page 418: “[t]he question is not whether the plaintiffs should have discovered the fraud sooner; but whether they could with reasonabl…”
- Explained — Jazztel Plc v The Commissioners for HMRC 2022-02-25
“… inclined to await further developments, and to allow other taxpayers to make the running. The standard is ‘could’, as Millett LJ emphasised in Paragon Finance [1999] 1 All ER 400 …. And the test is objective, as Millett LJ explained in the same passage of his judgment, and as Lord Walker JSC made clear in FII (SC) 1 [2012] 2 AC 337, whe…”
- Cited — Mark Byers v The Saudi National Bank 2022-01-27
“…ion had been expressed before Mitchell and Watterson wrote their book chapter, notably in a case quoted in the chapter, Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400, in which Millett LJ referred at 413 to “the distinction between an institutional trust and a remedial formula” and said at 409 of the class of “constructive t…”
- Cited — Mulalley & Co. Limited v Martlet Homes Ltd 2022-01-24
“… unnecessary allegations or the addition of further instances or better particulars do not amount to a distinct cause of action" – see Paragon Finance vThakerar[1999] 1 All ER 400at 405 per Millett LJ. "So in identifying a new cause of action the bare minimum of essential facts abstracted from the original pleading is to be compared with…”
- Cited — OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor 2021-04-14
“…The claimant in Paragon Finance Plc v DB Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 was a mortgage lending company which sought to amend its pleadings to allege a case of fraud after the expiry of the primary limitation period of six years. Mi…”
- Considered — OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag & Anor 2021-04-14
“…herent in section 32(1) of the 1980 Act, particularly after considering the way in which Millett LJ expressed himself in Paragon Finance Plc v DB Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400, that there must be an assumption that the claimant desires to discover whether or not there has been a fraud. Not making any such assumption would rob the eff…”
- Cited — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…It may be noted that Lord Millett said something similar in the same context in Paragon Finance v. Thakerar [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 402.…”
- Followed — Watson v KEA Investments Ltd 2019-10-23
“…On this second point, the written argument relied upon two passages from the judgment of Millett LJ (as he then was) in Thakerar v Paragon Finance [1999] 1 All ER 400, at 409 and 412 as follows:…”
- Cited — Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor 2019-03-14
“…We were referred by Mr Onslow first to this court’s decision in Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co. (A firm) [1999] 1 All ER 400, decided under the parallel to CPR r. 17.4 in RSC Ord. 20 r.5. It was held that to add to a claim in breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary dut…”
- Cited — Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor 2019-03-14
“…Less well known perhaps is the cautionary note added by Millett LJ in the Paragon Finance case [1999] 1 All ER 400, 418, where he said, after citing the passage from Glidewell LJ to which I have just referred: “In borderline cases this may be so. In others it must be a ques…”
- Cited — Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa 2018-09-12
“… was deceit by Ms Guidetti, acting for BNL, is plainly distinct from the issue of whether BNL was negligent: see e.g. Paragon Finance Plc v D.B. Thakerar & Co. [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 418f-h, where Millett LJ makes the point that in English law there is an important distinction between cases of fraud and dishonesty, on the one hand, and o…”
- Cited — Farrar v Miller 2018-02-14
“…t J (as he then was) referred in Lonrho Plc v Fayed (No.2) [1992] 1 WLR 1 at 9-10 and again, in the Court of Appeal, in Paragon Finance Plc v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400. There Millett LJ, as he had by then become, said this at 408-409:…”
- Cited — Farrar v Miller 2018-02-14
“…misappropriation of Long Stratton by Mr Miller. This is therefore a case falling within the first class of cases identified by Millett LJ in in Paragon Finance [1999] 1 All ER 400 at 408 to 409, that is to say one in which it is said that Mr Miller took control of the property not in his own right but as a consequence of a transaction an…”