Capita Trust Company Ltd v Optical Service (UK) Ltd [2014] EWHC 991 (Ch) (13 March 2014)

Capita Trust Company Ltd v Optical Service (UK) Ltd [2014] EWHC 991 (Ch) (13 March 2014)

The Defendant's explanation for the sum in question is inherently implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documents, inconsistent with prior statements and professional advice, and contradicted by documentary evidence. The defence is fanciful and has no real prospect of success. Judgment is granted to the Claimant for the sums claimed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 991 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Capita Trust Company Limited (as Administrator of the Estate of Graham Smith - Deceased); Defendant/appellant: Optical Service (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Loan Account, Bonus Payments, Pension Contributions, Limitation Act, Summary Judgment
Contract Employment Company Loan Account Bonus Payments Pension Contributions Limitation Act Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Capita Trust Company Limited (as Administrator of the Estate of Graham Smith - Deceased)

Claimant/respondent

Optical Service (UK) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of £477,630.87 plus interest is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant as the balance of a loan account representing unpaid bonuses and interest
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's explanation that the sum is owed to other directors as deferred pension payments is credible
  3. 3 Whether the Limitation Act bars the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's explanation for the sum in question is inherently implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documents, inconsistent with prior statements and professional advice, and contradicted by documentary evidence. The defence is fanciful and has no real prospect of success. Judgment is granted to the Claimant for the sums claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £477,630.87 plus interest from 30 September 2006 amounting to about a further £170,000