Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK Ltd & Anor

Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK Ltd & Anor

The HSM became part of the land through substantial annexation and purpose of creating a permanent steel mill. The April Agreement, while validly executed, could not prevent the HSM from becoming part of the land, but did create contractual and equitable rights for Lictor. Mir, through the Administrators, intentionally procured a breach of the April Agreement by acquiring the Site and HSM, knowing it would extinguish Lictor's rights. The defence of justification and land registration regime do not bar liability for procuring breach of contract in these circumstances. Lictor's loss was caused by the breach, not by its failure to register or seek injunction.

Parties
Claimant: Lictor Anstalt; First Defendant: Mir Steel UK Limited; Second Defendant: Libala Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Liability Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant against First Defendant (Mir Steel UK Limited) on liability for procuring breach of contract; Second Defendant (Libala Limited) default judgment.
Legal Topics
Fixtures and Chattels, Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Land Registration, Administration and Hive Down, Equitable Proprietary Rights
Property Law Contract Law Insolvency Law Tort Law Fixtures and Chattels Procuring Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy Land Registration +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lictor Anstalt

Claimant

Mir Steel UK Limited

First Defendant

Libala Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Liability Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hot strip mill (HSM) is a chattel or forms part of the land
  2. 2 Whether the April Agreement created enforceable rights for Lictor over the HSM
  3. 3 Whether Mir procured a breach of contract by acquiring the HSM

Ratio Decidendi

The HSM became part of the land through substantial annexation and purpose of creating a permanent steel mill. The April Agreement, while validly executed, could not prevent the HSM from becoming part of the land, but did create contractual and equitable rights for Lictor. Mir, through the Administrators, intentionally procured a breach of the April Agreement by acquiring the Site and HSM, knowing it would extinguish Lictor's rights. The defence of justification and land registration regime do not bar liability for procuring breach of contract in these circumstances. Lictor's loss was caused by the breach, not by its failure to register or seek injunction.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant against First Defendant (Mir Steel UK Limited) on liability for procuring breach of contract; Second Defendant (Libala Limited) default judgment.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mir Steel UK Limited procured breach of contract against Lictor Anstalt
  • Libala Limited liable by default judgment