Jack Loach

Last updated

Jack Loach (born 21 August 1942) is a prominent British businessman. His company was accused of failing in its duty of care in regard to the death of a 17-year-old boy. Mr. Jack Loach was one of the directors (together with members of his family) [1] of S&J Loach Ltd engineering contractors who were originally the subject of a Coroner’s verdict of unlawfully killing.

Contents

Outcome

The 17-year-old boy driver lost control of his car on a newly laid road surface, crashed and was killed. A public outrage (mainly his family and friends.) was caused when the Coroner was ordered by the Crown Office to change his verdict to one of accidental death. The Crown Office/Coroner apologized to S&J Loach Ltd for the gross negligence in reaching the original verdict. The Coroner in question was removed from the high-profile major city coroner’s post to a more rural location.

Career

Jack Loach is currently Managing Director of Glostone Limited since October 1998. He has held various directorships throughout the years in the following companies:

This case was a second-tier appeal. The judges disagreed [2] with the submission put forward by Mr. Loach.

According to the court ruling, the representation relied on the particulars of claim which was the sum of £1,370,000 would or could be transferred from one of the accounts of Peter Hirst held in the Pictet & Cie Bank, Switzerland into Jack Loach’s account. An account was set up for Mr. Loach by Pictet & Cie and documented agreements were drawn up by Pictet Asset Management for their client Peter Hirst to facilitate this transaction on 15 February 1997. A similar account had been set up personally by Ivan Pictet for a Mr. Peter Humphries in their London offices to transfer monies from Peter Hirst’s accounts in Geneva. Mr. Humphries gave this evidence to the courts. Those transactions were illegal transactions if carried out. Peter Hirst was an undischarged criminal bankrupt. Pictet & Cie were aware of their client's "criminal bankruptcy" back in 1993. They were visited in London by the Fraud Squad seeking the whereabouts of monies that Peter Hirst had fraudulently obtained and hidden. Therefore, any transfer of money from any account in Peter Hirst’s name was illegal, and in any case, that money had already vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Mr. Loach and Mr. Humphries are registered as creditors with Peter Hirst’s trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee acknowledges that Mr. Loach & Mr. Humphries account for almost 92% of the creditor debt.

Gerson made formal demands to S&J Loach for payment on 18 October 2000, and filed a claim against Mr Loach on 27 October 2000. The particulars of the claim alleged that at the result of the termination of the leasing agreement a total of £160,667.52 had become due to Gerson. The trial took place in December 2001. The judge gave judgment against Jack Loach [4] in the sum claimed (including interest to date) of £203,212.27. He further provided that interest should accrue on the judgment sum until payment at the rate of 2% per month. He refused the defendant's permission to appeal.

Related Research Articles

Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd. & Anor v William Hill Organization Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1702 was a patent case regarding Internet usage. The case addressed a European patent covering the United Kingdom for an invention referred to as "Interactive, computerized gaming system with remote control". Menashe sued William Hill, claiming that William Hill was infringing the patent by operating an online gaming system. William Hill's defence argued that it did not infringe the patent because the server on which it operated the system was located outside of the UK, in Antigua or Curaçao. Although accepting that their supply of software was in the UK and that this was an essential part of the invention, they further argued that the patent was for the parts of the system, and as one essential part of the system was not located in the UK, there could be no infringement.

Sir Peter Winston Smith, abbreviated to Peter Smith J in judgements, is a former High Court judge who sat in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales from 5 April 2002 to 27 October 2017. He was the subject of comment and investigation in relation to his judicial behaviour in various circumstances. He retired on 28 October 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mauritius Commercial Bank</span> Oldest (1838) commercial bank in Mauritius

Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB) is a commercial bank in Mauritius. MCB is licensed by the Bank of Mauritius, the country's central bank and the nation's banking regulator. The bank's headquarters are located in Port Louis, Mauritius.

Sir Jan Peter Singer was a judge of the High Court of England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Sedley</span> British lawyer

Sir Stephen John Sedley is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and was a visiting professor at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2015.

<i>Rock (Nominees) Ltd v RCO Holdings Ltd</i> UK company law case

Rock Nominees Ltd v RCO (Holdings) plc[2004] EWCA Civ 118 is a UK company law case dealing with unfair prejudice under section 459 Companies Act 1985. It was decided at first instance by Peter Smith J.

An account of profits is a type of equitable remedy most commonly used in cases of breach of fiduciary duty. It is an action taken against a defendant to recover the profits taken as a result of the breach of duty, in order to prevent unjust enrichment.

<i>Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd</i>

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration.

Sir Timothy Roger Alan King, styled The Hon. Mr Justice King, is a retired judge of the High Court of England and Wales assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.

<i>Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd</i>

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

<i>Das v Linden Mews Ltd</i>

Das v Linden Mews Ltd[2002] EWCA Civ 590 is an English land law case, concerning rights of way.

<i>Green v Lord Somerleyton</i>

Green v Lord Somerleyton is an English land law and tort law case, concerning easements of surface water/ditch drainage and the tests for nuisance in English law. In this case there was no remedy for the flooding found to be natural and not recently exacerbated by the defendant. The court attached to the properties an old, 1921, easement of drainage passing both land holdings, in this case two common examples of lowland water engineering, dykes controlled against tides by one-way valves, mentioned in the properties' deeds and, duplicatively, established the right by prescription. The dykes lay in the claimant's own land who had failed to maintain them and failed to account for the flows caused by reduction of water extraction from the lake upstream. The claimant had failed to repair the pump and clear ditches on his own land which had been agreed between the previous owners to give channelled drainage from a lake above. It was for the claimant to recognise the danger posed by its waterline being raised in 1954 by the building up of a weir.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i> UK legal case

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geoffrey Vos</span> British judge (born 1955)

Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos is a judge in England and Wales. Since January 2021, he has held the positions of Master of the Rolls and the Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales.

<i>Arnold v Britton</i>

Arnold v Britton[2013] EWCA Civ 902 is an English contract law case on implied terms.

<i>Watkins v Home Office and others</i> UKHL appeal with important implications for the tort of misfeasance in public office

Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

<i>Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd</i>

Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd [2019] IRLR 322 (EAT) is a UK labour law case concerning unfair dismissal and discrimination.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

References

  1. ↑ "Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Loach & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 450 (26 March 2002)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  2. ↑ "Loach v Pictet Asset Management UK Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1457 (25 September 2001)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  3. ↑ "Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Loach & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1031 (10 July 2002)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  4. ↑ "Michael Gerson (Leasing) Ltd v Loach & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 450 (26 March 2002)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.