VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors

If and to the extent the claimant relies upon 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 restrict itself to a closed list or to plead within a special/general market framework it does not accept. The references to market in the particulars of claim are sufficient and the defendants' criticisms are not soundly based.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars / Strike Out
Outcome
Application dismissed in material respects
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Administrators' Duties, Particularisation of Claim, Disclosure Obligations
Professional Negligence Insolvency Civil Procedure Breach of Duty Administrators' Duties Particularisation of Claim Disclosure Obligations

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 for Further and Better Particulars / Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant must identify specific potential purchasers in its pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's responses introduced a new unpleaded market-based case
  3. 3 Whether references to a general or special market must be pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

If and to the extent the claimant relies upon 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 restrict itself to a closed list or to plead within a special/general market framework it does not accept. The references to market in the particulars of claim are sufficient and the defendants' criticisms are not soundly based.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in material respects

Orders

  • Claimant is not required to provide a closed list of Potential Purchasers.
  • Claimant must identify any specific individuals or entities it intends to rely upon as Potential Purchasers in its statement of case.