Acquisition 395445638 Ltd v Sicovs & Anor

Acquisition 395445638 Ltd v Sicovs & Anor

The proposed amended particulars of claim did not disclose a viable contractual cause of action against the Respondent, as the alleged agreements were not binding between the parties and privity of contract principles applied. The judge's refusal to allow amendment and strike out of the claim was correct, and no procedural irregularity rendered the decision unjust.

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
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Merits Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; claim struck out
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Case Management, Referral Agreements, Rights of Third Parties
Contract Law Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Case Management Referral Agreements Rights of Third Parties

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amended particulars of claim disclosed a viable contractual cause of action against the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularity occurred in the handling and consolidation of related claims
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to amend and striking out the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amended particulars of claim did not disclose a viable contractual cause of action against the Respondent, as the alleged agreements were not binding between the parties and privity of contract principles applied. The judge's refusal to allow amendment and strike out of the claim was correct, and no procedural irregularity rendered the decision unjust.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; claim struck out

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on both grounds
  • Claim struck out as against the Respondent