Startwell Ltd v Energie Global Brand Management Ltd & Anor

Startwell Ltd v Energie Global Brand Management Ltd & Anor

The claim in deceit was a new claim for limitation purposes and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing misrepresentation claim; permission to amend was wrongly granted. The IMFAs were not executed as deeds, so the 6-year limitation applied and claims for breaches before 1 August 2007 were statute-barred. The misrepresentation claims were also statute-barred and contractually estopped. Summary judgment was granted on these claims. Security for costs was appropriate, to be provided in stages.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Startwell Limited; First Defendant/appellant: Energie Global Brand Management Limited; Second Defendant/appellant: Energie Global Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (franchise/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (appeal, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted in part; security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Contractual Estoppel, Withdrawal of Admissions
Contract Law Commercial Law Franchise Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Security for Costs +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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Startwell Limited

Claimant/respondent

Energie Global Brand Management Limited

First Defendant/appellant

Energie Global Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (franchise/commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (appeal, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to amend to plead deceit should be granted after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the IMFAs were executed as deeds or simple contracts
  3. 3 Whether claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract are statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in deceit was a new claim for limitation purposes and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing misrepresentation claim; permission to amend was wrongly granted. The IMFAs were not executed as deeds, so the 6-year limitation applied and claims for breaches before 1 August 2007 were statute-barred. The misrepresentation claims were also statute-barred and contractually estopped. Summary judgment was granted on these claims. Security for costs was appropriate, to be provided in stages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment granted in part; security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Permission to amend to plead deceit refused; Master's order reversed.
  • Admission withdrawn by first defendant with costs to claimant.