Burnford & Ors v Automobile Association Developments Ltd [2022] EWHC 368 (Ch) (28 February 2022)

Burnford & Ors v Automobile Association Developments Ltd [2022] EWHC 368 (Ch) (28 February 2022)

The court held that the claimants' claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract were not suitable for strike out or summary judgment at this stage. The claims raised triable issues and were not bound to fail as a matter of law. The reflective loss principle did not clearly bar the claims on the assumed facts, and the settlement agreement with the second claimant did not unequivocally preclude his High Court claim. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 368 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lucy Burnford; Claimant/respondent: Oliver Astley; Claimant/respondent: Giles Fitzpatrick; Claimant/respondent: Michael Symons; Claimant/respondent: Kevin Gaskell; Defendant/applicant: Automobile Association Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial/chancery Claim (business List, Ch D) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Reflective Loss, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Shareholder Claims
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Company Law Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Reflective Loss Summary Judgment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Burnford

Claimant/respondent

Oliver Astley

Claimant/respondent

Giles Fitzpatrick

Claimant/respondent

Michael Symons

Claimant/respondent

Kevin Gaskell

Claimant/respondent

Automobile Association Developments Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/chancery Claim (business List, Ch D) / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract should be struck out or summarily dismissed under CPR 3.4(2) and/or CPR 24.2
  2. 2 Whether the claims are barred by the reflective loss principle (no reflective loss)
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement with the second claimant bars his claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants' claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract were not suitable for strike out or summary judgment at this stage. The claims raised triable issues and were not bound to fail as a matter of law. The reflective loss principle did not clearly bar the claims on the assumed facts, and the settlement agreement with the second claimant did not unequivocally preclude his High Court claim. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's application to strike out or for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Costs to be determined.