“Details of the make and model of [the Partnership] tractors used on the contract including tank size and type of fuel used”
“The make and model of [Partnership] tractors used on the Biffa Liquids Subcontract, including tank size and type of fuel used, were as follows:”
“The total number of tractors used for a day’s spreading and the total number of hours/days incurred by each tractor spreading liquid waste on the Biffa contract”
“[55] Mr Hollington showed us Moody v Cox[1917] 2 Ch. 71 … Scrutton L.J. said, at pp.87–88, that “equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for.” [56] That is entirely consistent with Willis and Gonthier , where the misconduct lay in fabricating evidence in support of the claim itself. I deplore the petitioner's conduct as much as the judge did. However, considering the point first on the same material as the judge took into account, it seems to me that, on his finding (see para.116) that it had no bearing on the matters directly in issue, a finding which he was plainly entitled to make, he was right to disregard the forgery, and the petitioner's use of the forged letter, when deciding whether the conditions under s.459 were made out. He was also right to disregard it in relation to the question whether to exercise his discretion to make any, and if so what, order under s.461 . The forgery itself had no immediate or necessary relation to the circumstances upon which the petitioner's entitlement, or otherwise, to relief depended. At best it was an episode in the background history. Given the lack of impact it had on Mr Richardson and Mr Wheeler, the judge was entitled to treat it in the way in which he did.”
“The first point relied on by the judge is that there was fault on both sides and that the conduct of Mr Grace could affect the remedy to be granted. Although as already mentioned, the general principle is not in doubt, we do not accept that it is a relevant factor going to remedy in this particular case…… The judge’s ruling that the existence of fault on the part of the petitioner should exclude the making of a buyout order, even if that order would otherwise be an appropriate remedy for conduct on the part of the respondents amounting to unfair prejudice, also needs to be examined. Although we do not rule out such a case, it is difficult to reconcile this with the judges earlier [finding that Mr Grace’s conduct was irrelevant to and not a justification for the non-payment by the respondents of the 2002 dividend. If Mr Grace’s conduct ought to be excluded (which we accept) from consideration of whether he has suffered unfair prejudice, we do not understand how it can then be admissible so as to deprive him of what would otherwise be the appropriate remedy for that prejudice. It is also difficult to see what (if any) allowance the judge actually made for Mr Grace’s conduct, so as to justify a lesser remedy than the one sought. We are not, therefore, persuaded that Mr Grace’s conduct can be used to support the rejection of a buyout order.”
“This means that even if the facts are those which the Petitioner alleges constitute an unfair prejudice, the Petitioner must still convince the Court that it is fit to make an order granting the relief which he seeks.”
“Their interests are clearly relevant and may be decisive in deciding what order should be made under the section. I do not see why the Court should close its eyes to the interest of others and the effect of any order made under Section 996 on them, although of course the weight to be given to their interests will depend on the circumstances …”
“73. Once unfair prejudice is established, the court is given a wide discretion as to the relief which should be granted. Although s.461(1) speaks in terms of relief being granted “in respect of the matters complained of”, the court has to look at all the relevant circumstances in deciding what kind of order it is fair to make. It is not limited merely to reversing or putting right the immediate conduct which has justified the making of the order. In Re Bird Precision Bellows [1986]Ch.658 , Oliver LJ described the appropriate remedy as one which would “put right and cure for the future the unfair prejudice which the petitioner has suffered at the hands of the other shareholders of the company.”