- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors v Waypharm LP & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
The claimants, three companies registered in England and Wales and part of a larger group ultimately owned by a German company, operated as importers and wholesalers of pharmaceutical and household products. They traded branded pharmaceuticals ("ethicals") and over-the-counter products ("OTCs"). The first defendant was a limited partnership engaged in wholesale sourcing and supply of pharmaceutical and household products. The second defendant, a qualified pharmacist, effectively owned and controlled this partnership and related companies, including entities registered in the British Virgin Islands, Samoa, and France.
The claimants initially alleged that the defendants perpetrated fraud by presenting fraudulent documentation under an irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by the claimants' bank, and that one defendant breached fiduciary duties by obtaining secret commissions. The proceedings began in March 2008, with some defendants not participating at trial. The claimants settled their claims against one defendant and discontinued secret profits claims against others before trial. The claims pursued at trial concerned fraudulent presentations under the Letter of Credit in December 2005 and February 2006, involving false invoices and false Forwarder's Certificates of Receipt (FCRs) purporting to relate to goods held at a warehouse in Antwerp.
The trial commenced in February 2011 and lasted until June 2011, with the defendants largely unrepresented except for the second defendant who represented himself. The claimants were represented by counsel and solicitors. The court heard extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony, including from company representatives and the controlling defendant.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the December 2005 and February 2006 presentations under the Letter of Credit were fraudulent.
- Whether the goods described in the invoices were ordered by the claimants and whether the defendant knew or believed the goods were ordered.
- Whether the FCRs and invoices contained fraudulent representations regarding the existence and location of goods.
- Whether the claimants compromised or waived claims arising from the invoices by subsequent agreements.
- The liability of the defendants for conspiracy, causing loss by unlawful means, inducing breach of contract, breach of implied contractual terms, and restitution.
- The quantum of the claimants' losses and the extent of defendants' liability.
Arguments of the Parties
Claimants' Arguments
- The defendants knowingly presented false invoices and FCRs under the Letter of Credit, misrepresenting that goods were ordered, existed, and were held at a warehouse in Antwerp.
- The defendants engaged in conspiracy and unlawful means to cause loss to the claimants.
- The defendants breached implied contractual terms requiring good faith presentations under the Letter of Credit.
- The defendants are liable in restitution for monies received without delivering goods or repaying the claimants.
- The claimants quantified their loss as over £8.7 million.
Defendants' Arguments
- The invoices and FCRs related to genuine orders placed or forecasts accepted by the claimants.
- The freight forwarding agent prepared the FCRs, and the confirming bank approved the use of a particular company to sign them.
- The defendant controlling the partnership did not see the FCRs before presentation and was not personally involved in their preparation.
- The claimants refused delivery of goods they had ordered, and later alleged fraud under new management.
- The agreements reached in 2006 compromised or waived claims arising from the disputed invoices.
- The defendant lacked dishonest intent and had no motive to defraud the claimants.
- The claimants owed the defendants money on the running account, negating loss.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Noble Resources SA v Gross [2009] EWHC 1435 (Comm) | Standard of proof in civil fraud cases is the balance of probabilities. | The court applied the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether fraudulent presentations occurred. |
| B (Children) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2009] 1 AC 11 | Clarification that balance of probabilities applies regardless of seriousness of allegation. | The court acknowledged that serious allegations require careful consideration but do not alter the standard of proof. |
| Satyam Computer Services Ltd v Upaid Systems Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 487 | Clear language required to compromise claims based on fraud in settlement agreements. | The court held that the 2006 agreements did not compromise or waive fraud claims absent clear language. |
| Bank of Credit and Commerce International (in liquidation) v Ali [2001] UKHL 8 | General releases construed strictly; unknown claims and fraud claims require clear exclusion. | Supported the court's view that fraud claims were not waived by the parties' agreements. |
| R v McDonnell [1966] 1 QB 233 | Criminal conspiracy between a company and its sole controller is impossible due to lack of two minds. | The court distinguished criminal conspiracy from civil conspiracy liability of a sole controller acting through corporate entities. |
| Taylor v Smyth [1991] IR 142 (Irish Supreme Court) | Liability for civil conspiracy can extend to a person and company under his control acting in concert to cause injury by unlawful means. | The court found the controlling defendant liable for conspiracy despite sole control of companies involved. |
| Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al Bader [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 106 CA | Party to conspiracy liable even if not the one who commits unlawful act, provided party agreed to unlawful means. | Supported finding that the defendant companies and controlling individual were liable for conspiracy. |
| OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1 (HL) | Elements of tort of causing loss by unlawful means. | The court applied these elements to hold defendants liable for causing loss by unlawful means via fraudulent presentations. |
| Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan Shipping Corporation (No 2) [2002] UKHL 43 | Directors making fraudulent misrepresentations on behalf of companies are personally liable for their fraud. | The court held the controlling defendant personally liable for fraud despite acting as company director. |
| Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830 | Distinction between negligent misrepresentation liability requiring assumption of responsibility and fraud liability. | The court distinguished this case to affirm that fraud liability cannot be avoided by acting on behalf of a company. |
| Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12 | Separate legal personality of companies and agency principles. | Used to discuss directors' liability and company separate personality, but personal liability for fraud upheld. |
| Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd [1921] 2 AC 465 | Directors not generally personally liable for company acts unless they direct or procure wrongful acts. | The court found the defendant personally liable as he directed and procured the fraudulent acts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court conducted a detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence, focusing on the authenticity of the invoices and FCRs presented under the Letter of Credit, the existence and ordering of the goods, and the conduct of the defendants. The court found that the goods listed in the December 2005 and February 2006 invoices had not been ordered by the claimants and that the defendants knew or must have known this.
The FCRs purportedly signed by a freight forwarding company (MYK) in Antwerp were found not to be genuine. MYK had no presence in Antwerp and did not sign or inspect the goods. The court accepted expert evidence that the warehouse records did not support the existence or storage of the goods described in the invoices at the relevant times. The defendants' explanations for the preparation and signing of the FCRs were inconsistent and implausible.
The court rejected the defendants' argument that subsequent agreements in 2006 compromised or waived the claimants' fraud claims, holding that such agreements were commercial arrangements to limit financial exposure and did not amount to a release of fraud claims absent clear language.
On liability, the court held that the defendants, including the controlling individual and related companies, were liable in tort for conspiracy, causing loss by unlawful means, inducing breach of contract, breach of implied terms of contract, and restitution. The controlling defendant was personally liable for his fraudulent acts, as established in relevant case law. The court found the defendants' denials and explanations not credible and emphasized the controlling defendant's central role in the fraudulent scheme.
The court carefully considered the quantum of loss, rejecting many of the defendants' claims for credits and deductions. It found that the claimants suffered a loss of approximately £8.7 million and that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay damages and restitution for this amount.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision is that Waypharm, the controlling individual, and Best Financial are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimants damages in the sum of £8,745,464. Waypharm is also liable in restitution for the same sum, subject to maximum recovery.
The controlling individual is personally liable for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means and for inducing breach of contract. Best Financial is liable for conspiracy based on its role in laundering monies obtained fraudulently.
The decision directly affects the parties by imposing substantial liability on the defendants for fraudulent presentations under the Letter of Credit and associated torts. No new precedent beyond the application of established principles was set by this decision.
Alert