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 claim disclosed no real prospect of success because there was no evidence of a contractual relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. The relevant written agreements were not between the parties to this action, and the Respondent was not contractually bound by the hire agreements between the Appellant and the 1st Defendant. The judge below was correct to refuse permission to amend and to strike out the claim.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2320 (QB)
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Acquisition 395445638 Limited; 1st Defendant: Mr Andrejs Sicovs; 2nd Defendant / Respondent: Dunne & Co Solicitors (A Firm) (formerly Dunne & Gray Solicitors)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From County Court (central London) to High Court (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Referral Agreements, Credit Hire Claims
Contract Law Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Referral Agreements Credit Hire Claims

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

Parties

Acquisition 395445638 Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Mr Andrejs Sicovs

1st Defendant

Dunne & Co Solicitors (A Firm) (formerly Dunne & Gray Solicitors)

2nd Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From County Court (central London) to High Court (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant had a viable contractual claim against the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the County Court judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Particulars of Claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out for having no real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's proposed amended claim disclosed no real prospect of success because there was no evidence of a contractual relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. The relevant written agreements were not between the parties to this action, and the Respondent was not contractually bound by the hire agreements between the Appellant and the 1st Defendant. The judge below was correct to refuse permission to amend and to strike out the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to amend Particulars of Claim upheld
  • Strike out of claim against Respondent upheld