Lictor Anstalt (A Company) v MIR Steel UK Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3310 (Ch) (13 December 2012)

Lictor Anstalt (A Company) v MIR Steel UK Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 3310 (Ch) (13 December 2012)

Mir Steel's application for summary judgment is refused; the claim for inducing breach of contract against Mir Steel has a real prospect of success as Mir Steel's entry into the hive down agreement constitutes sufficient causative participation, and justification does not entitle Mir Steel to summary judgment. The administrators are protected by Said v. Butt, but Mir Steel, as a separate legal entity, is not.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3310 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lictor Anstalt; First Defendant/proposed Part 20 Claimant: Mir Steel UK Limited; Second Defendant: Libala Limited; Proposed Part 20 Defendant: Christopher Morris; Proposed Part 20 Defendant: Mark Fry; Proposed Part 20 Defendant: David Hudson; Proposed Part 20 Defendant: Alphasteel Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Joinder of Part 20 Defendants
Outcome
Summary judgment application by Mir Steel dismissed; application to join Part 20 defendants deferred pending trial outcome.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Inducing Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Administrator's Liability, Justification Defence, Fixtures and Chattels, Contribution Claims
Commercial Law Insolvency Tort Law Conversion Inducing Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy Administrator's Liability Justification Defence +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lictor Anstalt

Claimant

Mir Steel UK Limited

First Defendant/proposed Part 20 Claimant

Libala Limited

Second Defendant

Christopher Morris

Proposed Part 20 Defendant

Mark Fry

Proposed Part 20 Defendant

David Hudson

Proposed Part 20 Defendant

Alphasteel Limited (in liquidation)

Proposed Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Joinder of Part 20 Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mir Steel is liable for inducing breach of contract by Alphasteel under the April 2000 agreement
  2. 2 Whether Mir Steel is liable for conspiracy
  3. 3 Whether Mir Steel can claim contribution from Alphasteel and its administrators

Ratio Decidendi

Mir Steel's application for summary judgment is refused; the claim for inducing breach of contract against Mir Steel has a real prospect of success as Mir Steel's entry into the hive down agreement constitutes sufficient causative participation, and justification does not entitle Mir Steel to summary judgment. The administrators are protected by Said v. Butt, but Mir Steel, as a separate legal entity, is not.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application by Mir Steel dismissed; application to join Part 20 defendants deferred pending trial outcome.

Orders

  • Mir Steel's application for summary judgment on inducing breach of contract and conspiracy claims is refused.
  • Application to join Alphasteel and administrators as Part 20 defendants is not determined at this stage.