VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 1786 (Ch) (27 July 2023)

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 1786 (Ch) (27 July 2023)

If and to the extent the claimant relies on individual potential purchasers, it must identify them in its statement of case to enable the defendants to know the case they have to meet. However, the claimant is not required to provide a closed list or be restricted from relying on categories of potential purchasers. The references to the market in the claimant's responses do not constitute a new, unpleaded case and do not warrant striking out.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1786 (Ch)
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
27 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim (interlocutory Application) / Application to Compel Further Particulars And/or Strike Out Passages in Responses to Request for Further Information
Outcome
Application dismissed in part and allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Pre Pack Administration, Disclosure Obligations, Pleading Requirements, Market Valuation, Strike Out Applications
Professional Negligence Insolvency Civil Procedure Breach of Duty Pre Pack Administration Disclosure Obligations Pleading Requirements Market Valuation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 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

Professional Negligence Claim (interlocutory Application) / Application to Compel Further Particulars And/or Strike Out Passages in Responses to Request for Further Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant must identify by name all 'Potential Purchasers' it will rely on at trial
  2. 2 Whether the claimant can rely on categories of potential purchasers or must provide a closed list
  3. 3 Whether certain passages in the claimant's responses to the Request for Further Information constitute an unpleaded 'market-based' case and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

If and to the extent the claimant relies on individual potential purchasers, it must identify them in its statement of case to enable the defendants to know the case they have to meet. However, the claimant is not required to provide a closed list or be restricted from relying on categories of potential purchasers. The references to the market in the claimant's responses do not constitute a new, unpleaded case and do not warrant striking out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part and allowed in part

Orders

  • Claimant must identify in its statement of case any individual potential purchasers it intends to rely on at trial.
  • Claimant is not required to provide a closed list or be barred from relying on categories of potential purchasers.