Tactus Holdings Limited v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors

Tactus Holdings Limited v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors

The claims in deceit, unlawful means conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, and unlawful interference are not arguable as there is no evidence of false representations or dishonesty. The breach of warranty claim relating to the stock provision is arguable and should proceed. The residual allegations are inadequately particularised but should not be struck out at this stage; the Claimant should be given an opportunity to amend.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Tactus Holdings Limited; Defendant / Applicant: Philip Mark Jordan; Defendant / Applicant: William Milleret-Spencer; Defendant / Applicant: Thomas Hindle; Defendant / Applicant: Robert Woolley; Defendant / Applicant: Robert Sutherland; Defendant / Applicant: SCH Bursell Limited; Defendant / Applicant: Simon Charles Hingston Bursell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute (breach of Warranty, Deceit, Conspiracy, Tort) / Application for Reverse Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out
Outcome
Reverse summary judgment granted in part; application refused in part; consideration of residual allegations adjourned for amendment.
Legal Topics
Breach of Warranty, Deceit, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Disclosure, Contractual Interpretation
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Breach of Warranty Deceit Unlawful Means Conspiracy Procuring Breach of Contract Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tactus Holdings Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Philip Mark Jordan

Defendant / Applicant

William Milleret-Spencer

Defendant / Applicant

Thomas Hindle

Defendant / Applicant

Robert Woolley

Defendant / Applicant

Robert Sutherland

Defendant / Applicant

SCH Bursell Limited

Defendant / Applicant

Simon Charles Hingston Bursell

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute (breach of Warranty, Deceit, Conspiracy, Tort) / Application for Reverse Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims in deceit, unlawful means conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, and unlawful interference are arguable
  2. 2 Whether the breach of warranty claim relating to the stock provision is arguable
  3. 3 Whether the residual allegations are adequately particularised and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The claims in deceit, unlawful means conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, and unlawful interference are not arguable as there is no evidence of false representations or dishonesty. The breach of warranty claim relating to the stock provision is arguable and should proceed. The residual allegations are inadequately particularised but should not be struck out at this stage; the Claimant should be given an opportunity to amend.

Court Disposition

Reverse summary judgment granted in part; application refused in part; consideration of residual allegations adjourned for amendment.

Orders

  • Reverse summary judgment granted on claims in deceit, unlawful means conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, and unlawful interference.
  • Application for summary judgment/strike out on breach of warranty claim relating to stock provision refused.