11/8/2011 Johnson v Gore Wood Co [2002]2 AC 1(House of Lords) Further explained the "no reflective loss"principle Lord Bingham considered 5 heads of claim pleaded by Johnson ·When can a s/er sue? Further distinguish co's loss and diminution in the value of s/er's shares Does this mean that a co and s/ers cannot sue together? Exceptions to the "no reflective loss"principle ·Giles v Rhind ·Gardner v Parker ·Perry v Day Giles v Rhind [2002]EWCA Civ 1428,[2003]Ch 618 (Court of Appeal) What is the rule in this case? ·Court of Appeal:: "Even in relation to that part of the claim for diminution which could be said to be reflective of the company's loss,since if the co had no cause of action to recover that loss the s/er could bring a claim,the same should be true of a situation in which the wrongdoer has disabled the co from pursuing that cause of action" How to apply Giles v Rhind rule? ·Gardner v Parker Neuberger U:"the court must be satisfied that the sort of circumstances described in Giles v Rhind...exist" Perry v Day>the def is disallowed to say... 10 611/8/2011 5 9 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (House of Lords) • Further explained the “no reflective loss” principle • Lord Bingham considered 5 heads of claim pleaded by Johnson • When can a s/er sue? • Further distinguish co’s loss and diminution in the value of s/er’s shares • Does this mean that a co and s/ers cannot sue together? • Exceptions to the “no reflective loss” principle  Giles v Rhind  Gardner v Parker  Perry v Day 10 Giles v Rhind [2002] EWCA Civ 1428, [2003] Ch 618 (Court of Appeal) • What is the rule in this case? • Court of Appeal: “Even in relation to that part of the claim for diminution which could be said to be reflective of the company’s loss, since if the co had no cause of action to recover that loss the s/er could bring a claim, the same should be true of a situation in which the wrongdoer has disabled the co from pursuing that cause of action” • How to apply Giles v Rhind rule?  Gardner v Parker Neuberger LJ: “the court must be satisfied that the sort of circumstances described in Giles v Rhind … exist”  Perry v Day → the def is disallowed to say …