Damian P Molyneux
Damian P MolyneuxDirector
- +44 (0)1624 695800
- University of Teeside Bachelor of Law LL.B (Hons)
- Chester College of Law – Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice
- Chartered Insurance Institute – Certificate of Financial Planning
- Advocate Isle of Man
- Income Tax Commissioner (Arbitrating Income Tax Disputes)
Back to top
Chairman of Young Lawyers Association 2007
Isle of Man Young Lawyers Association 2006
Back to top
Legal directory endorsements
'Specialises in defending claims brought against medical professionals or institutions both by direct instruction or via insurers.'Legal 500 (2018 edition)
"very good at reassuring clients during difficult times - his calm character hides his determination and drive to ensure the best outcome for his clients"Legal 500 - UK (2017 edition)
'Client focussed and commercially minded'Legal 500 - UK (2016 edition)
a member of the firm's litigation practice and has experience in advising on financial sector and funds claims."Chambers Global (2013 edition)
The "very proactive" Damian Molyneux enjoys growing visibility in the market and is recognised as "an up-and-coming advocate"."Chambers (2012 edition)
Ranked in the category of "Dispute Resolution" as being "very proactive" and recognised as "one of the up-and-coming advocates on the Island".Chambers Europe (2012 edition)
Ranked in the category of "Associates to Watch".Chambers Europe (2011 edition)
Clients say that he "gives common-sense advice".Chambers Europe (2011 edition)
approachable and dedicated to his clients.Chambers (2011 edition)
Back to top
Articles and publications
Brave New World - Enforcement of Judgments - May 2020
Desperate Times - Careful Measures - April 2020
Hello Pension, Goodbye Tension? - M&P Review 2019
Insolvency Issues - A Manx Perspective - M&P Review 2018
Cart Before The Horse - How to obtain early evidence in litigation - M&P Review 2018
Security For Costs - Second bites of the cherry - M&P Review 2018
International Law Office: Winding up of debtor companies - April 2010
Strike out on non pre-emptory order - May 2009
Non recovery of UK solicitor costs in IOM actions - February 2009
M&P Review: Cast off those bad debts in 2010 - December 2009
Strike out possible even where unless order - May 2009
Manx debt recovery: When, Where and How - November 2007
Published locally in press
Back to top
Negligent Financial Advice:
Beechwood (BIL v Another):
Claim for negligent advice involving analysis of what constitutes low risk investments, spread of investments (risk), causation and damages quantum. Successfully settled at mediation.
Turnstone (Trustee client v IFA):
Claim for negligent investment advice where a high risk investment had been in place prior to appointment of a new advisor who was retained to provide advice to the trust with a low risk outlook. Issues re existing investments and whether advice extended to same. Issues re quantum. Beddoes orders. Successfully settled at mediation.
J v A Bank:
A claim for misrepresentation and negligent investment advice of a bank which had invested £1m for a client in an investment which had lost a significant amount of money. Successfully settled at mediation.
Petition of Friends Provident Limited:
Insurance contracts and negligent investment advice. The policyholder of the petitioner had, upon advice of a third party financial advisor, effected a savings policy using qualifying funds from various pension policies. There was no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the policyholder. It was not possible to transfer benefits back to the originating schemes. The court ordered that benefits could be transferred to another qualifying scheme set up for the benefit of the policyholder.
Lalude v RL360
Preliminary point – whether life company could rely on Defence available under statute that it had obtained a valid discharge of liability in circumstances where it had made payments from a policy under a fraudulently gained grant of probate.
Advised in a number of disputes involving provision of negligent investment advice, in respect of which previous 10 years' experience in the financial sector, including time spent as an Independent Financial Adviser, proved invaluable. Cases included:
- Claims following advice to invest in guaranteed and/or protected funds; and
- Claims in respect of experienced investor funds; and
- Inappropriate fact find processes
- Inappropriate categorisation of client risk profile resulting in unsuitable investments; and
- Investment companies failure to spot pattern of IFA trading suggestive of churning resulting in losses to client; and
- Failure of investment/life company to act on client instructions to remove ability of IFA to make trades on his behalf;
- Liability of a life company to client following its encashment of a policy due to a fraud perpetrated by third parties (failure to follow own procedures/local regulations); and
- Advice as to implantation and interpretation of local regulations governing financial services.
Conducted a number of Winding Up claims and advised liquidators on a extensive liquidation matters including as to conclusion of winding up proceedings, actions against the liquidator by (and on behalf of) rejected claimed creditors and recovery of assets.
Munin Navigation Company Limited v Petrodel Resources Limited [1 August 2013]
Winding up of oil exploration company, including identification of worldwide assets.
Petrodel resources Limited (in liquidation):
Winding up of company involving worldwide assets and claims against it for assets allegedly held on trust (see below Prest v PRL). Issues involved formation of committee of inspection and waiver thereof; liquidator and advocate remuneration, assessment of costs of liquidation. Impact of English divorce proceedings (see Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited (in liquidation) below.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited (in liquidation):
A claim brought alleging all assets held on trust as a result of the order of the Supreme Court in the divorce case of Prest v Prest and Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited  UKSC 34 on proceedings and issues re looking behind the corporate veil. [http://www.judgments.im/Content/J1397.htm]
In Prest v Prest the court found that PRL held certain properties on trust for the husband and that therefore they could form part of the matrimonial settlement, even though legal ownership was vested in the company. The husband then claimed as against the company alleging that all of its assets were held on trust for it. Judgment for the company after the claim was struck out.
The case also involved an application for Security for Costs as against the Claimant which was granted on the basis of the likely costs of the proceedings rather than by reference to the extra costs of enforcement. Decision upheld on appeal.
Islamic Investment v Cains Advocates [9 August 2013]:
An appeal division case dealing with contrastive trusteeship and alleged breach of English Freezing orders by payment from monies held on advocate's client account.
JSC v Sabadash (various dates)
A claim for a Russian state owned bank involving a wide range of issues based on enforcement of a Russian Judgement and including Norwich Pharmacal application, World Wide Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Appeal.
Unite the Union v GJF:
A claim to recover costs paid by indemnifying union in respect of negligent legal advice. Settled.
Opinion on rights of account holder to recover money from collapsed bank upon the bank going into liquidation and in circumstances where account holder had acted as guarantor in respect of a loan granted by the bank to a third party, there being dispute as to whether the guarantee was satisfied/lapsed.
FSC v Brunswick:
Acted for the FSC in director disqualification proceedings following conviction for conspiracy to defraud, procuring breaches of contracts and knowingly assisting another party to breach its fiduciary duties. Various unreported mediated cases:
Acted for the local regulator on numerous occasions in respect of regulatory advice regarding the conduct of liquidators and directors including as to Officers disqualification proceedings.
Multiple instructions in respect of injunctions, debt recovery, liquidation advice, commercial contract proceedings etc.
Performing Right Society v Various
Involvement in action re: breach of copyright following unauthorised broadcast and use of materials at a music festival.
Various claims acting for medical practitioners, GP’s and government departments in defending allegations of negligence including as to dental work, misdiagnosis, failure to treat properly, administration of medication.
Specialism in fatal and non fatal motorcycle and cycle accident claims. Notable cases include:
A v B:
Personal injury motorcycle claim. Injuries resulting from m/c accident and secondary injury (as to which issues involving causation) resulting in spinal fusion operation. Damages and quantum in respect of middle aged man unable to continue in work. Quantum of circa £1.2m. Settled in JSM.
DC v Isle of Man Constabulary:
Motorcycle claim as a result of a collision with a stationary police car. Life changing injuries including loss of limbs. Damages and quantum for young man unable to continue work. Settled.
W v R:
Motorcycle death claim of middle aged man with multiple income streams and young family. Settled.
O v (a Government department):
Motorcycle death claim for an individual following collision with stationary traffic at roadworks. Liability issues in respect of visible signage for roadworks and speed limit. Settled.
Multiple Cycle and Motorcycle accident claims following road traffic collisions.
Other notable cases
Craig Linden Sims v DHSS:
Acted in the application to strike out the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of non-compliance with rules of court and a non pre-emptory order. Although the application was dismissed the court found, as argued, that failure to comply with an order of the court (whether or not pre-emptory) is capable of founding a successful strike out application.
Traditional Builders Ltd v Modena Lifestyles Ltd and Paul Mellor (2010):
An offer stated to be made under chapter 6 of Part 7 of the rules of court (akin to part 36 offers in England) must comply with the terms of rule 7.54 and if so will have the costs consequences set out in rule 7.61.
RPS Consultants Ltd v Hexagon Enterprises Ltd:
Rules of court as to the discretion of the court on the issue of costs act to limit the statutory discretion afforded per the High Court Act 1991. Costs awarded above fixed costs usually ordered only in circumstances where behaviour of the Defendant warranted it. It was also found that a contractual provision for payment of legal expenses of recovery of a debt does not override the discretion of the court but is a starting point for the exercise of that discretion.
EMEA Oil Limited v Petrodel Resources Limited (2010):
Application for the winding up of the defendant company. Whether counter claims raised were bona fide. Demonstration of solvency by the defendant company.
EMEA Oil Limited v Petrodel Resources Limited (2010):
Defendant company avoided an order for winding up by placing monies in its advocates' bank account subject to an undertaking that said monies could only be removed by agreement with the Claimant or by order of court. As a result of the undertaking the Claimant withdrew from the winding up proceedings and the Defendant sought to argue that the undertaking had served its purpose and that the court should order it discharged. It was found that the undertaking continued to operate in circumstances where the claimant company had commenced fresh proceedings for the recovery of the monies subject to the undertaking.
EMEA Oil Limited v Petrodel Resources Limited (2010): Contractual claim against an oil exploration company involving construction of contracts, employment, discovery issues, confidentiality and corporate governance. Damages awarded to the Claimant in full. Claimant made part 7 offer (akin to part 36 in England) which was beaten at trial. As a result of the offer costs were awarded to be assessed on the standard basis prior to expiry of the relevant period of the offer and thereafter on the indemnity basis. Interest on damages was awarded at the rate of 10% above base from the date of expiry of the relevant period prior to which it was applied at 4% per annum. Interest on costs was also awarded at the rate of 10% above base over the same period. In addition the court ordered an interim payment to be made to the Claimant on account of costs to be assessed.
Corkill and Corkill v Philip Walmsley and CWD Limited:
Building Contracts. The second defendant had contracted for certain building works for the Claimants. The company ceased trading and the first defendant (an employee of the second defendant) represented that he would finish the building works at no extra cost. Although the majority of the cost of the building works had been paid by the Claimants a small retention had been withheld on account of snagging and the court found this sufficient consideration to give effect to a contract between them and the first defendant.
Measure of damages under Harassment Act. Application to English Vento guidelines to IOM cases.
Acting for a government department following a third party disclosure application made against it by the defendant in criminal proceedings. Public interest immunity and ECHR issues involved.
Acting for large insurer in subrogated claim of building negligence. Negligent underpinning of property adjacent to development by the developer as a condition of planning permission. House unsafe. Measure of damages. Damages for stress and inconvenience.
Acting in winding up proceedings for custodians of a private investor fund following a failure of one of the underlying funds to redeem monies upon valid request.
Back to top