← All Authorities
United Kingdom minority protectionpure economic lossexpectation damages

Sabbagh v Khoury

[2019] EWCA Civ 1219
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Year2019
StatusOverruled

Summary

CA held reflective loss principle barred shareholder claims mirroring company's loss, but this broad approach was subsequently narrowed by Sevilleja v Marex [2020] UKSC 31.

Key Principle

The Court of Appeal held that the reflective loss principle (as then understood) barred shareholders from claiming for loss that was merely a reflection of the company's loss; this was subsequently narrowed by Sevilleja v Marex.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Sabbagh v Khoury and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Sabbagh v Khoury