Stobart Group Ltd & Ors v Elliott

Stobart Group Ltd & Ors v Elliott

Permission for contempt proceedings is granted only where a strong prima facie case is shown, particularly for statements made in support of without notice applications, and where public interest and proportionality justify it. Mr Elliott's counterclaim is struck out in its entirety as it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is based on torts not recognized by law, is time-barred, or is otherwise unarguable.

Parties
Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): Stobart Group Limited; Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): Eddie Stobart Limited; Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): WA Developments International Limited; Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): William Andrew Tinkler; Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): William Stobart; Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033): Trevor Howarth; Defendant (2 Ma90133) / Claimant (3 Ma90033): Peter Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Bring Contempt Proceedings and to Strike Out Counterclaim
Outcome
Permission for contempt proceedings granted in part; counterclaim struck out.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Malicious Falsehood, False Imprisonment, Fraud, Derivative Claims, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Company Law Defamation Aviation Law Contempt of Court Abuse of Process Malicious Prosecution Malicious Falsehood +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stobart Group Limited

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

Eddie Stobart Limited

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

WA Developments International Limited

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

William Stobart

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

Trevor Howarth

Claimant (2 Ma90133) / Defendant (3 Ma90033)

Peter Elliott

Defendant (2 Ma90133) / Claimant (3 Ma90033)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Bring Contempt Proceedings and to Strike Out Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to bring contempt proceedings against certain parties for alleged false statements in witness statements and affidavits
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim filed by Mr Elliott discloses any reasonable cause of action and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for contempt proceedings is granted only where a strong prima facie case is shown, particularly for statements made in support of without notice applications, and where public interest and proportionality justify it. Mr Elliott's counterclaim is struck out in its entirety as it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is based on torts not recognized by law, is time-barred, or is otherwise unarguable.

Court Disposition

Permission for contempt proceedings granted in part; counterclaim struck out.

Orders

  • Permission for contempt proceedings to be continued against Mr Tinkler in relation to Allegations 3, 4, 8, 28 and 40, and against Mr Howarth in relation to Allegations 13 and 19.
  • Permission for contempt proceedings otherwise refused.