Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Mandatory injunction granted to require execution of share sale agreement despite claims of mistake
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court granted a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to sign a share purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of shares in a Romanian company, following an earlier court order to which the defendant had consented. The defendant argued that the SPA contained clauses he believed could inadvertently settle ongoing disputes in two sets of proceedings between the parties, but the court found that personal oversight or mistake does not excuse non-compliance with a court order. The court determined that changes to transaction dates in the SPA were immaterial and compliance with court orders takes precedence, though the defendant may pursue subsequent claims without prejudice. Costs were awarded against the defendant for failing to comply with the order.
mandatory injunction – share purchase agreement (SPA) – refusal to sign – court order enforcement – mistake in consent – mandatory order – sale of shares – commercial property – outstanding legal proceedings – without prejudice claims – costs order – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – captioned proceedings – settlement clause – High Court
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
