The High Court has found that Bloxham Stockbrokers Partnership had a duty to account for its management of an investment fund held for Kenneth Best, a Ward of Court. Ms Justice Baker did not make a final order for an account at this stage, saying the available records appeared incomplete and further review was needed.
The proceedings were brought by Mr Best’s mother and sister, acting as the joint Committee of his person and estate. They sought an account of the fund’s dealings and supporting documents. The court said the claim was for an account in its own right, not an allegation that the defendants had acted wrongfully. No inquiry into the dealings was being sought at this stage.
Mr Best was made a Ward of Court in 1993 after a settlement arising from brain damage caused by a vaccine he received as a baby. Of the IR£2.7 million settlement, IR£500,000 was used for past expenses and the remaining IR£2.25 million formed the fund. Bloxham managed it from 2001 until the firm was directed to cease trading in 2012. It was not the fund’s custodian.
Justice Baker concluded that Bloxham’s discretionary control over investment decisions, and its responsibility to act in the fund’s interests, created a sufficient duty of loyalty and confidence to require an account. She said this conclusion did not decide whether Bloxham was a fiduciary in every sense or whether other fiduciary duties existed. The Committee had standing to bring the action under the President of the High Court’s authorisation.
The judge said an account should provide enough information and documentation to explain the fund’s transactions, investments, income, expenses and investment decisions. The records before the court included transaction data and statements, but had significant gaps. Evidence differed over whether regular reports had been sent to the courts’ offices. The liquidator said he held 504 boxes of Bloxham documents and was willing to agree a protocol for inspection; the judge said the Committee and its advisers should be permitted to inspect them at the Committee’s cost.
Justice Baker said the plaintiffs should seek further directions from the President of the High Court about records held by the relevant court offices, and that their financial expert should review the additional documents. She was not satisfied that a final account order should be made until those steps were taken.
The judge found the liquidator had no duty to account for the fund and that the limited partner, Legacy Investment Holdings Ltd, had no established basis for liability. She proposed making orders against the first defendant, Pramit Ghose, only, and said she would hear counsel on the correct approach to the other defendants. The judgment therefore left the final scope of any account unresolved.