Summary judgment for £77m against former directors of Jersey company – Wood & Adam v Khumalo and ors [2026] JRC 202

The Royal Court of Jersey has handed down judgment for £77m against the former directors of Gold & General Ltd, a Jersey company.

During their time in office, two former directors procured the company to transfer valuable shares in an English company, Metallon Corporation, to a New Zealand trust that  appeared to benefit one of the directors.

Gold & General later entered liquidation upon the application of a creditor and its Joint Liquidators brought proceedings against the former directors under Article 176 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 to reverse the transaction at an undervalue, and under Article 74 of the 1991 Law for compensation for breach of directors’ duties.

The Jersey proceedings were then served on the directors in Switzerland and South Africa, but they did not engage. The liquidators applied for summary judgment against the directors.

The Court concluded that, on the evidence, the directors had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim. After considering evidence on quantum filed by the Joint Liquidators, judgment was entered for c. £77m, being the higher of the two amounts sought.

The Bailiff’s judgment considers several matters of wider importance for commercial litigators and those involved in claims against Jersey directors:

• The Court followed a line of English authorities including Duferco SA v CVG Ferrominera Orinoco CA [2021] EWHC 824 (Comm) and European Union v Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 1712 (Comm) and accepted that it was proper to grant summary judgment against non-participating defendants as an alternative to default judgment so as to obtain a determination on the merits to aid enforcement.

• Applying by analogy the remarks of Arden LJ in Re Mumtaz Properties Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 610, the Court held that “In many cases involving breaches of duty by directors, the Court is faced with an absence of contemporaneous written documentation in respect of the dealings of the company. Where a director has had the opportunity to produce such documents in their defence but has not, the Court may draw inferences as to whether a transaction was for cause, in the company’s interests or other analogous matters”.

• The Court also took the chance to consider the well-known Sequana principle and its application in Jersey. The Court declined to make a finding as to whether it was or was not part of Jersey law, but said that it could “see strong arguments to the effect that it should be recognised”.

Rabin Kok (acting unled) advised the Joint Liquidators throughout the claim and also in advance of the summary judgment hearing, instructed by Advocate Lynne Gregory and Emily Le Poidevin at Baker & Partners and Andrew Wood and Alexander Adam of Teneo. Advocate Gregory appeared for the Joint Liquidators at the summary judgment hearing.

Find the full judgment here