Global InformationSevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd information
| Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd | |
|---|---|
 The Supreme Court | |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Full case name | Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd |
| Decided | 15 July 2020 |
| Citation(s) | [2020] UKSC 31 |
| Transcript(s) | BAILII UKSC |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | [2018] EWCA Civ 1468 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lady Hale Lord Reed Lord Hodge Lady Black Lord Lloyd-Jones Lord Kitchin Lord Sales |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Lord Reed (with whom Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed) |
| Concurrence | Lord Hodge |
| Dissent | Lord Sales (with whom Lady Hale and Lord Kitchin agreed) |
| Keywords | |
| |
Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to company law and the rule against reflective loss.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
The issue which the court had to resolve was whether the creditors of a company could claim against a third party who had asset-stripped the company, or whether their claims were barred by the fact that the company was proper plaintiff under the rule in Foss v Harbottle and thus their claim should be barred as reflective loss.[5] All seven judges agreed that the rule against reflective loss did not apply to creditors and that the claim could proceed.
However "the bulk of the judgment"[4] related to the proper application of the rule against reflective loss. On this issue the court split, 4:3. The minority simply wanted to abolish the rule, but the majority were content to reform the rule, disapproving or overruling various statements which had been made in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 and subsequent cases. In particular the majority held that the subsequent decisions in Giles v Rhind [2003] Ch 618, Perry v Day [2004] EWHC 3372 and Gardner v Parker [2004] EWCA Civ 781 were all wrongly decided.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
MLRwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
LQRwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "UK Supreme Court ruling narrows scope of reflective loss principle". Pinsent Masons. 21 July 2020. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
- ^ a b "The rule against reflective loss limps on - Sevilla v Marex in the Supreme Court". Wilberforce Chambers. 16 July 2020.
- ^ a b "Sevilleja v Marex: Reflective Loss Restated". 4 New Square. 17 July 2020.
- ^ "Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31: The Supreme Court's review of the law on Reflective Loss". Exchange Chambers. 17 July 2020.