Cunningham v Ellis & Ors

Cunningham v Ellis & Ors

The claims for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and fraudulent misrepresentation were inadequately pleaded, lacking primary facts from which dishonesty or conspiracy could be inferred. The allegations were speculative and did not meet the required standard for pleading fraud. The claims were also time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud and concealment more than six years before commencing proceedings. The claims for breach of fiduciary duty, to the extent not based on fraud, were also time-barred. Accordingly, the claims were struck out and, in any event, the Defendants were entitled to summary...

Parties
Claimant: David James Coulter Cunningham; First Defendant: Lawrence Charles Alexander Ellis; Second Defendant: Douglas Ronald Graham; Third Defendant: Giles Francis John Penn; Fourth Defendant: Bank of Scotland PLC; Fifth Defendant: Ernst & Young
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims struck out; summary judgment for Defendants (in the alternative)
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Injure, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Company Law Insolvency Law Tort Law Conspiracy to Injure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Limitation of Actions +2 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David James Coulter Cunningham

Claimant

Lawrence Charles Alexander Ellis

First Defendant

Douglas Ronald Graham

Second Defendant

Giles Francis John Penn

Third Defendant

Bank of Scotland PLC

Fourth Defendant

Ernst & Young

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and fraudulent misrepresentation are adequately pleaded
  2. 2 Whether the claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the claims disclose a real prospect of success for summary judgment purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The claims for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and fraudulent misrepresentation were inadequately pleaded, lacking primary facts from which dishonesty or conspiracy could be inferred. The allegations were speculative and did not meet the required standard for pleading fraud. The claims were also time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud and concealment more than six years before commencing proceedings. The claims for breach of fiduciary duty, to the extent not based on fraud, were also time-barred. Accordingly, the claims were struck out and, in any event, the Defendants were entitled to summary...

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; summary judgment for Defendants (in the alternative)

Orders

  • All claims against all Defendants are struck out for inadequate pleading.
  • Alternatively, summary judgment is granted in favour of all Defendants as the claims have no real prospect of success.