Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor & Ors [2013] EWHC 25 (Ch) (18 January 2013)

Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor & Ors [2013] EWHC 25 (Ch) (18 January 2013)

The court held that the Settlement Agreement did not operate as a release of GCP's claims against the Defendants, nor did it constitute full satisfaction. The claims were not barred as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, and GCP's case on causation was sufficiently pleaded to survive strike out and summary judgment applications.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 25 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Gladman Commercial Properties; First Defendant: Fisher Hargreaves Proctor; Second Defendant: HEB Chartered Surveyors; Third Defendant: David Hargreaves; Fourth Defendant: Jonathan Paul Thomas Bishop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Misrepresentation Claim / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; claim proceeds.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Release and Satisfaction, Causation, Planning Law
Commercial Law Tort Law Property Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Abuse of Process Release and Satisfaction Causation +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Commercial Properties

Claimant

Fisher Hargreaves Proctor

First Defendant

HEB Chartered Surveyors

Second Defendant

David Hargreaves

Third Defendant

Jonathan Paul Thomas Bishop

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Misrepresentation Claim / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Settlement Agreement released GCP's claims against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether GCP's claims are barred by full satisfaction
  3. 3 Whether GCP's claims constitute an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Settlement Agreement did not operate as a release of GCP's claims against the Defendants, nor did it constitute full satisfaction. The claims were not barred as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, and GCP's case on causation was sufficiently pleaded to survive strike out and summary judgment applications.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; claim proceeds.

Orders

  • Defendants' applications to strike out and for summary judgment are refused.
  • Claimant's amended Particulars of Claim are permitted.