Jet Holdings Inc. v. Patel

2 All E.R. 648 (1989)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Jet Holdings Inc. v. Patel

England and Wales Court of Appeal
2 All E.R. 648 (1989)

  • Written by Elizabeth Yingling, JD

Facts

Patel (defendant) worked as an accountant in California for Jet Holdings Inc. and two if its affiliates (collectively, Jet) (plaintiffs). Jet’s president, Don Arden, accused Patel of misappropriation of corporate funds and fired him. Patel denied the allegations and complained that, on three occasions in California and in England, Arden subjected Patel to actual and threatened violence and extorted $100,000 from Patel. Arden’s son was later convicted in England of conspiracy to menace Patel and false imprisonment. Arden was prosecuted for the same crimes but was acquitted. Jet sued Patel for misappropriation in the California Superior Court and sought $168,000 in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. Patel, through his lawyers, filed an answer and a cross-claim against Arden and several others related to the alleged violence and threats. On Jet’s request, the court ordered Patel to appear in California to be examined by medical doctors. The order required Jet to pay Patel’s travel expenses and to pay for a security guard selected by Patel to accompany him throughout the trip. Patel did not comply with the court order, alleging that Jet failed to provide a plane ticket. The evidence suggested this assertion was untrue. The court then ordered Patel to appear for deposition in California pursuant to the same conditions as were ordered on the medical examinations. Patel failed to comply with the order, again claiming that Jet had not provided a plane ticket. There was evidence suggesting this claim was also untrue. At this point in the litigation, Patel’s lawyers had withdrawn. Patel claimed he did not have the money to pay lawyers because of Arden’s extortion of $100,000. The California court struck Patel’s answer and cross-claim and entered a default judgment against Patel. Arden admitted to the court that Jet had received $100,000 from Patel and offered to take that into account. Arden claimed $86,000 was owed by Patel. The court entered a judgment for $186,000 in damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Jet sought to enforce the judgment in England under common law, and Patel opposed based on Arden’s fraudulent conduct. Common-law rules for enforcing foreign judgments provided that enforcement was appropriate unless the judgment was obtained by fraud. The lower court issued a summary judgment for Jet for the full amount claimed plus interest. The appellate court dismissed Patel’s appeal. Patel appealed from that dismissal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Staughton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership