Jogo Associates Ltd & Ors v Internacionale Retail Ltd

Jogo Associates Ltd & Ors v Internacionale Retail Ltd

The evidence of Mr Brafman was not credible and thus inadmissible as fresh evidence. However, Mr Bennett's evidence regarding Ms Deacock's alleged admission that the retention of title letters were signed in November 2008 (not June 2008) was relevant and satisfied the Ladd v Marshall criteria. This evidence provided Internacionale with a prospect of defending the claim that was more than fanciful. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, but subject to a condition that Internacionale pay £600,000 into court.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jogo Associates Limited; Claimant/respondent: The Pinstripe Clothing Company Limited; Claimant/respondent: The Red Orange Clothing Company Limited; Defendant/appellant: Internacionale Retail Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed, summary judgment set aside subject to condition.
Legal Topics
Retention of Title, Summary Judgment, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Insolvency Proceedings
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Retention of Title Summary Judgment Admission of Fresh Evidence Insolvency Proceedings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jogo Associates Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Pinstripe Clothing Company Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Red Orange Clothing Company Limited

Claimant/respondent

Internacionale Retail Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted in favour of Jogo Associates Limited against Internacionale Retail Limited based on retention of title clauses.
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal under the Ladd v Marshall criteria.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Mr Brafman was not credible and thus inadmissible as fresh evidence. However, Mr Bennett's evidence regarding Ms Deacock's alleged admission that the retention of title letters were signed in November 2008 (not June 2008) was relevant and satisfied the Ladd v Marshall criteria. This evidence provided Internacionale with a prospect of defending the claim that was more than fanciful. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, but subject to a condition that Internacionale pay £600,000 into court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, summary judgment set aside subject to condition.

Orders

  • Internacionale to pay £600,000 into court as a condition for defending the claim.
  • Directions to be given for timing of payment and consequential matters.