Birch v Lloyd & Anor [2017] EWHC 914 (TCC) (08 March 2017)

Birch v Lloyd & Anor [2017] EWHC 914 (TCC) (08 March 2017)

The claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy, insofar as they relate to the alleged breaches of the Building Contract (non-payment of Interim Certificates 34 and 35 and prevention of Interim Certificate 36), are arguable and should proceed to trial. The claims based on the contract structure being a sham, and the claims for procuring breach of sub-contracts, are not properly particularised or sustainable and are struck out. The conversion and trespass to goods claims raise triable issues and are not struck out.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 914 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Palmer Birch (a partnership); First Defendant: Michael Lloyd; Second Defendant: Christopher Lloyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Parts of Claim (cpr 3.4(2)(a)) / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Conversion, Trespass to Goods, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Tort Law Construction Law Procuring Breach of Contract Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations Unlawful Means Conspiracy Conversion Trespass to Goods +3 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmer Birch (a partnership)

Claimant

Michael Lloyd

First Defendant

Christopher Lloyd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Parts of Claim (cpr 3.4(2)(a)) / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy disclose reasonable grounds and should proceed to trial.
  2. 2 Whether the contract structure involving HHL was a sham justifying piercing the corporate veil.
  3. 3 Whether the claims for conversion and trespass to goods raise triable issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy, insofar as they relate to the alleged breaches of the Building Contract (non-payment of Interim Certificates 34 and 35 and prevention of Interim Certificate 36), are arguable and should proceed to trial. The claims based on the contract structure being a sham, and the claims for procuring breach of sub-contracts, are not properly particularised or sustainable and are struck out. The conversion and trespass to goods claims raise triable issues and are not struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Claims and allegations based on the contract structure being a sham and piercing the corporate veil are struck out.
  • Claims for procuring breach of sub-contracts and related loss of profit are struck out.