Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 1st)

Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 1st) - ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK, DARIER HENTSCH ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE October 17, 2000 COO J.: 1. This is a motion by the moving Darier Hentsch defendants, Swiss bankers, for an order staying the action against them and also staying the crossclaim against them by the Barclays defendants. 2. The action against the rest of the defendants is for fraudulent misconduct on their part in connection with how approximately $1.5 million US disappeared from the plaintiff’s grasp and control. There is a claim that the Barclays defendants were involved in a conspiracy with these defendants that led to the plaintiff’s loss of funds. 3. The money was borrowed by the plaintiff from Darier Hentsch, ultimately placed in an account in a Bahamas branch of the defendant Barclays, and came to be withdrawn in circumstances giving rise to the claims of fraud. There are claims against the moving defendants and the Barclays defendants founded on negligent money transfer or transfers in clear violation of instructions as to how the money was to flow electronically from Darier Hentsch to its destination. 4. The defendants alleged to have been directly involved in the fraudulent conduct have been served, have not defended and have been noted in default. 5. The Barclays defendants were served outside Ontario without leave, in reliance on Rule 17.02(o), as necessary or proper parties to a proceeding properly brought against another person served in Ontario. The defendant, United Investment Funds Inc., is an Ontario company that was served in this province and is alleged to have been a participant in the fraud upon the plaintiff that produced his loss. The Barclays defendants attorned to the jurisdiction of this Court, delivered a statement of defence and have crossclaimed against the moving party defendants for indemnity for any sum they might be found liable to pay the plaintiff. They deny participating through their Nassau manager of the time, the co-defendant Wallace, in the conspiracy alleged. Wallace is one of the Barclays defendants, represented by the same law firm. There is no crossclaim brought against him by Barclays themselves. 6.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Rozsa v Barclays Bank (read 1st) - ROZSA v. BARCLAYS BANK,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online