Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors

Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors

The particulars of claim were inadequately pleaded as to fraud and misrepresentation, especially regarding the oral and 'suite' representations, and the claimant failed to amend in time or provide good reasons for delay. The freezing injunctions were discharged due to the claimant's failure to prosecute the claim with proper expedition. Permission to amend was refused for most proposed amendments, except for limited clarifications. The trust and 'letter' representations claims were not struck out, but the rest of the deceit claims were.

Parties
Claimant: Eco Quest PLC; First Defendant: GFI Consultants Limited (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Andrew Nathaniel Skeene; Third Defendant: Junie Conrad Omari Bowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Fraud/trust) / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, to Discharge Freezing Injunctions, and for Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Claim struck out in part; summary judgment refused; freezing injunctions discharged; permission to amend refused except for limited clarifications.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Freezing Injunctions, Trusts (quistclose/constructive), Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Freezing Injunctions Trusts (quistclose/constructive) Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eco Quest PLC

Claimant

GFI Consultants Limited (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Andrew Nathaniel Skeene

Second Defendant

Junie Conrad Omari Bowers

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Fraud/trust) / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, to Discharge Freezing Injunctions, and for Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the particulars of claim should be struck out for failure to plead fraud with sufficient particularity
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the defendants on the deceit and trust claims
  3. 3 Whether the freezing injunctions should be discharged for delay and failure to prosecute the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of claim were inadequately pleaded as to fraud and misrepresentation, especially regarding the oral and 'suite' representations, and the claimant failed to amend in time or provide good reasons for delay. The freezing injunctions were discharged due to the claimant's failure to prosecute the claim with proper expedition. Permission to amend was refused for most proposed amendments, except for limited clarifications. The trust and 'letter' representations claims were not struck out, but the rest of the deceit claims were.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in part; summary judgment refused; freezing injunctions discharged; permission to amend refused except for limited clarifications.

Orders

  • Oral and 'suite' representations struck out from particulars of claim
  • Freezing injunctions against second and third defendants discharged