Back to Insights listing

International / offshore, Commercial disputesMonday 26 March 2018

Akita Holdings Ltd v Attorney General – the final curtain

Following his success before the Privy Council early last year in Akita Holdings Ltd v AG for Turks & Caicos Islands [2017] AC 590 David Phillips QC returned to the Turks & Caicos Islands’ Supreme Court for the taking of the account affirmed by the Privy Council.  The issues involved application of the principles set out by the Privy Council, namely the remedies available against a knowing recipient of property acquired at an undervalue from a person acting in breach of a fiduciary duty included the personal remedy of seeking an account of profits and that the liability to account arose from the mere fact of a profit having been made which should not be retained by the fiduciary or a knowing participant in the fiduciary’s breach of duty. 

In the event, the sums payable to the Government by Akita on an application of those principles were agreed during the morning of the first day’s hearing on 15 March 2018.  This brought to an end proceedings that had been commenced in 2011: the action had involved three hearings in the Supreme Court, two hearings in the Court of Appeal, and one in the Privy Council.  David’s case had succeeded in all bar the first appearance – which was reversed in David’s favour by the Court of Appeal.

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