Acquisition 395445638 Ltd v Sicovs & Anor [2019] EWHC 2320 (QB) (06 September 2019)

Acquisition 395445638 Ltd v Sicovs & Anor [2019] EWHC 2320 (QB) (06 September 2019)

The Appellant's proposed Amended Particulars of Claim disclosed no cause of action in contract against the Respondent. The Referral and Introducer Agreements were not between the parties to the instant claim, and there was no evidence of a contractual obligation binding the Respondent to pay the Appellant. The Respondent's actions were governed by its retainer with the 1st Defendant, and privity of contract prevented liability to the Appellant. The application to amend was refused and the claim against the Respondent was struck out as having no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2320
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Acquisition 395445638 Limited; 1st Defendant: Mr Andrejs Sicovs; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Dunne & Co Solicitors (formerly Dunne & Gray Solicitors)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (central London) / High Court Appeal, Permission and Merits Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to amend refused; claim against Respondent struck out.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Referral Agreements, Conditional Fee Agreements
Contract Law Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Referral Agreements Conditional Fee Agreements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Acquisition 395445638 Limited

Claimant/appellant

Mr Andrejs Sicovs

1st Defendant

Dunne & Co Solicitors (formerly Dunne & Gray Solicitors)

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (central London) / High Court Appeal, Permission and Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's proposed Amended Particulars of Claim disclosed a cause of action in contract against the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent owed a contractual duty to the Appellant to account for settlement monies
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant should be permitted to amend its Particulars of Claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's proposed Amended Particulars of Claim disclosed no cause of action in contract against the Respondent. The Referral and Introducer Agreements were not between the parties to the instant claim, and there was no evidence of a contractual obligation binding the Respondent to pay the Appellant. The Respondent's actions were governed by its retainer with the 1st Defendant, and privity of contract prevented liability to the Appellant. The application to amend was refused and the claim against the Respondent was struck out as having no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to amend refused; claim against Respondent struck out.

Orders

  • Appellant's application to amend Particulars of Claim refused
  • Respondent's application to strike out claim granted