Vanden Recycling Ltd v Bevin Tumulty Bolton Brothers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 3616 (QB) (17 December 2015)

Vanden Recycling Ltd v Bevin Tumulty Bolton Brothers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 3616 (QB) (17 December 2015)

Satisfaction of the consent judgment against Bolton, as a joint tortfeasor, extinguished the claim against Kras for the same damage; therefore, the claim against Kras cannot continue and summary judgment is granted in its favour.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3616 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Vanden Recycling Limited; First Defendant: Bevin Tumulty; Second Defendant: Bolton Brothers Limited; Third Defendant/applicant: Kras Recycling BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Employee Competition Litigation / Civil Claim / Application by Third Defendant for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Third Defendant (Kras Recycling BV); claim against Kras dismissed.
Legal Topics
Joint Tortfeasors, Consent Judgments, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Employee Competition, Breach of Confidence, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Conspiracy
Tort Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Joint Tortfeasors Consent Judgments Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Employee Competition +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanden Recycling Limited

Claimant

Bevin Tumulty

First Defendant

Bolton Brothers Limited

Second Defendant

Kras Recycling BV

Third Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Employee Competition Litigation / Civil Claim / Application by Third Defendant for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a satisfied consent judgment against one joint tortfeasor bars further proceedings against another for the same damage
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Third Defendant (Kras) can continue after satisfaction of the consent judgment against the Second Defendant (Bolton)
  3. 3 Whether the claim is inadequately pleaded or without remaining value

Ratio Decidendi

Satisfaction of the consent judgment against Bolton, as a joint tortfeasor, extinguished the claim against Kras for the same damage; therefore, the claim against Kras cannot continue and summary judgment is granted in its favour.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Third Defendant (Kras Recycling BV); claim against Kras dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties to agree an appropriate order or apply to be heard on the form of the order.