VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors

The claimant is entitled to rely on categories of potential purchasers and is not required to identify every individual within those categories. The pleadings are not plainly unarguable or embarrassing such as to warrant striking out. However, certain inconsistent or irrelevant passages in the replies must be amended or struck out, and the claimant is given a short period to remedy these deficiencies.

Parties
Claimant: VE Vegas Investors IV LLC; First Defendant: Evelyn Partners LLP (formerly Smith & Williamson LLP); Second Defendant: Henry Shinners; Third Defendant: Finbarr O’Connell; Fourth Defendant: Colin Hardman; Fifth Defendant: Mark Ford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/business) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out Application Under CPR 3.4(2))
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Administrators' Duties, Breach of Duty, Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements, Identification of Potential Purchasers
Insolvency Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Administrators' Duties Breach of Duty Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements Identification of Potential Purchasers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC

Claimant

Evelyn Partners LLP (formerly Smith & Williamson LLP)

First Defendant

Henry Shinners

Second Defendant

Finbarr O’Connell

Third Defendant

Colin Hardman

Fourth Defendant

Mark Ford

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/business) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out Application Under CPR 3.4(2))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is required to identify each and every potential purchaser allegedly not identified by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the statements of case should be struck out for failing to specify which potential purchasers should have been identified
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's reliance on categories of potential purchasers is permissible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to rely on categories of potential purchasers and is not required to identify every individual within those categories. The pleadings are not plainly unarguable or embarrassing such as to warrant striking out. However, certain inconsistent or irrelevant passages in the replies must be amended or struck out, and the claimant is given a short period to remedy these deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Claimant given a short period to amend inconsistent or irrelevant passages in the November 2023 Replies.
  • Application to strike out the List and Revised List in full refused.