Balaratnam v Santander UK Plc [2019] EWHC 227 (QB) (08 February 2019)

Balaratnam v Santander UK Plc [2019] EWHC 227 (QB) (08 February 2019)

Each head of claim in the original particulars was bound to fail; claimant admitted not fulfilling requirements for release of retention funds; regulatory provisions relied upon did not apply; appointment of receivers was contractually permitted; amendments permitted by the master were incoherent and failed to plead viable causes of action; summary judgment should have been granted to the bank.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 227 (QB)
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Mr Selvaratnam Balaratnam; Defendant and Appellant: Santander UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted to the bank.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Appointment of Receivers, Statutory Duties, Regulatory Compliance
Contract Law Tort Law Banking Law Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Appointment of Receivers Statutory Duties Regulatory Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Selvaratnam Balaratnam

Claimant and Respondent

Santander UK PLC

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original claim particulars disclosed any viable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could amend to plead tortious or statutory duties
  3. 3 Whether the bank breached contractual or regulatory obligations

Ratio Decidendi

Each head of claim in the original particulars was bound to fail; claimant admitted not fulfilling requirements for release of retention funds; regulatory provisions relied upon did not apply; appointment of receivers was contractually permitted; amendments permitted by the master were incoherent and failed to plead viable causes of action; summary judgment should have been granted to the bank.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted to the bank.

Orders

  • Original claim struck out.
  • No viable cause of action pleaded; amendments rejected.