Reflective loss—key and illustrative decisions
Reflective loss—key and illustrative decisions

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Reflective loss—key and illustrative decisions

This Practice Note summarises a number of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to the rule against reflective loss.

For further guidance on the background to and principle underpinning the rule, as well as details of the key practical issues that it is sensible to have in mind should you have a case in which the rule might be relevant, see Practice Note: Reflective loss.

Case details and analysis Judgment dateCase summary
QBD (Commercial Court)
Allianz Global Investors GmbH v Barclays Bank plc [2021] EWHC 399 (Comm)
25 February 2021This case considered the question whether an ex-shareholder who had redeemed or withdrawn their investment could be caught by the rule against reflective loss.
It was submitted that when a shareholder withdrew or redeemed their investment in a company the sum they received was, in effect, a distribution by virtue of their shareholding. It followed from Prudential v Newman and Marex v Sevilleja (discussed below) that the shareholder therefore had no right in English law to claim damages from the defendants in respect of the reduction in the value of that distribution caused by the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. That reduction in value, it was argued, was merely the result of a loss suffered by the company, ie reflective loss.
In contrast, the defendants argued that the rule in Prudential and Marex did not apply because the
Related documents:

Popular documents