Back to Insights listing

Commercial disputes, Civil fraud and asset recoveryThursday 10 October 2024

High Court hands down judgment on Jaffé v Greybull Capital LLP

The High Court handed down judgment on Jaffé v Greybull Capital LLP [2024] EWHC 2534 (Comm), following a 3-week, multimillion-pound Commercial Court fraud claim brought by the insolvency administrator of Wirecard.

The Claimants had sought c. £12m in damages for deceit, alleging that a deliberate oral misrepresentation at a meeting in 2016 led to Wirecard Bank extending credit to Monarch Airlines (which subsequently became insolvent). Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE dismissed the case in its entirety. In her judgment, she considered the conflicting accounts of two “equally patently honest and truthful witnesses”, the inherent probabilities and the surrounding circumstances, and, notwithstanding a near-contemporaneous note of the meeting taken by one of the Claimants’ witnesses, concluded that the alleged misrepresentations had not been made.  The Judge agreed with the Defendants that German law applied to the claim and considered and applied the German law of causation, concluding that even if the misrepresentations had been made, they had not been relied upon.

Of particular interest is the Judge’s consideration of “Gestmin” and the matters raised by Popplewell LJ in his 2023 COMBAR lecture “Judging Truth from Memory”.

John Wardell KC, instructed by Andrew Head, Bryan Shacklady and David Young (Forsters LLP) and leading Thomas Elias (Serle Court), acted on behalf of the successful Defendants.

Read the full judgment

People to view:

Share by: Email

Related Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Articles

    A fiduciary’s duty to disclose: a shield, not a sword?

    In the latest edition of our commercial litigation insights series, Alice Hawker examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in G.I. Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, considering whether a fiduciary's duty to disclose is a shield (against claims alleging breach of the ’no conflict’ or ’no profit’ rules) or a sword (to be used as a freestanding claim).

    By Alice Hawker
    Monday 19 October 2026

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Articles

    Nelson, what does your right eye see? When does wilful ignorance amount to dishonesty

    In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Ernest Leung analyses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Grosvenor Property Developers Limited v Portner Law Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1238, which provides important guidance on the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims and the circumstances in which "Nelsonian" or blind-eye knowledge can be imputed to a party.

    By Ernest Leung
    Tuesday 13 October 2026

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Judgment of the ECSC Court of Appeal delivered in JSC BTA Bank v Mamesh and others

    Civil fraud and asset recovery, Commercial disputes

    Thomas Grant KC
    Friday 9 October 2026

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Permission to proceed? Derivative claim denied

    Company law, Commercial disputes, Joint venture and partnership disputes, Trusts, probate and estates: contentious

    Nikki Singla KC | Caspar Bartscherer
    Tuesday 6 October 2026

    View more

View all thought leadership