Killen v Horseworld Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1600 (QB) (24 June 2011)

Killen v Horseworld Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1600 (QB) (24 June 2011)

The Master was correct to find that the pleaded facts and evidence disclosed an arguable claim in quantum meruit against the individual defendants, and that the disputes as to the nature of the services and the parties' intentions required resolution at trial. The application to strike out or for summary judgment was properly dismissed as the claim was not unarguable and there were substantial factual disputes.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1600 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Heather Killen; First Defendant: Horseworld Limited; Second Defendant: Horseworld (UK) Limited; Third Defendant/first Appellant: Toby Vintcent; Fourth Defendant/second Appellant: Richard Worrall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal by Mr Worrall refused
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Personal Liability of Directors, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Implied Contracts
Contract Law Restitution Company Law Quantum Meruit Personal Liability of Directors Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Implied Contracts

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Killen

Claimant/respondent

Horseworld Limited

First Defendant

Horseworld (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

Toby Vintcent

Third Defendant/first Appellant

Richard Worrall

Fourth Defendant/second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim in quantum meruit against individual directors (Vintcent and Worrall) should be struck out or determined summarily in their favour
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded facts disclose a reasonable cause of action in quantum meruit against the individual defendants
  3. 3 Whether the evidence shows that the claimant only dealt with the corporate defendants or also with the individuals personally

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was correct to find that the pleaded facts and evidence disclosed an arguable claim in quantum meruit against the individual defendants, and that the disputes as to the nature of the services and the parties' intentions required resolution at trial. The application to strike out or for summary judgment was properly dismissed as the claim was not unarguable and there were substantial factual disputes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal by Mr Worrall refused

Orders

  • Mr Vintcent's appeal dismissed
  • Mr Worrall's application for permission to appeal refused