Karl Suleman Enterprizes v George

The case involves Karl Suleman Enterprizes and others as plaintiffs against George and others as defendants. The plaintiffs, including two companies and two individuals, sought to recover money paid to George, who was appointed as an agent to promote a fraudulent unregistered managed investment scheme. The scheme was wound up by the court, and receivers were appointed to wind up the fund. The plaintiffs claimed against George for money paid to him as commission or fees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and fraud. The claim against the receivers was dismissed for lack of facts. The court was required to decide whether the claims against George were bound to fail and whether the defences of illegality and lack of clean hands would succeed if raised.

The court held that the claims against George were not bound to fail. The court found that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims against George, including that he acted as an agent for the plaintiffs and received payments for his services. The court also held that the defences of illegality and lack of clean hands were not necessarily fatal to the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had clean hands because they were not involved in the illegal scheme and had sought to recover the lost funds. The court further found that the illegality defence was not necessarily a complete bar to the plaintiffs' claims because the plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce the illegal contract but rather to recover lost funds.

The court dismissed the application to strike out or dismiss the proceedings against George. The court found that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims against George and that the defences of illegality and lack of clean hands were not necessarily fatal to those claims. The court also found that the receivers were not liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiffs because they were not involved in the illegal scheme and had acted properly in winding up the fund. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendants.

The court ordered that the application by the fifth defendant to strike out or dismiss the proceedings against him be dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendants. The court further ordered that the claim against the receivers be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficient facts to support their claims against the fifth defendant and that the defences of illegality and lack of clean hands were not necessarily fatal to those claims. The court held that the receivers were not liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiffs because they were not involved in the illegal scheme and had acted properly in winding up the fund.