Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors [2016] EWHC 57 (QB) (21 January 2016)

Eco Quest Plc v GFI Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors [2016] EWHC 57 (QB) (21 January 2016)

The court found that while some aspects of the particulars of claim were inadequately pleaded, there remained a sufficiently arguable case of deceit and trust to justify the continuation of proceedings in part. The freezing injunctions were discharged as the threshold for continuation was no longer met. Permission to amend the particulars of claim was refused for most proposed amendments due to failure to cure pleading deficiencies and inconsistencies, but granted to a limited extent where amendments clarified the case without prejudice to the defendants.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 57
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 / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Discharge of Injunctions, Permission to Amend
Outcome
Partial dismissal; discharge of injunctions; limited permission to amend
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Constructive Trust, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Fraud Trusts and Equity Insolvency Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Constructive Trust Summary Judgment +3 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 13 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 / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Discharge of Injunctions, Permission to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim should be struck out or are amenable to summary judgment for lack of reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether freezing injunctions against the second and third defendants should be discharged
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while some aspects of the particulars of claim were inadequately pleaded, there remained a sufficiently arguable case of deceit and trust to justify the continuation of proceedings in part. The freezing injunctions were discharged as the threshold for continuation was no longer met. Permission to amend the particulars of claim was refused for most proposed amendments due to failure to cure pleading deficiencies and inconsistencies, but granted to a limited extent where amendments clarified the case without prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal; discharge of injunctions; limited permission to amend

Orders

  • The particulars of claim are struck out to a limited extent as specified in the judgment.
  • The freezing injunctions against the second and third defendants are discharged in their entirety.