Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 727 (Comm) (04 March 2022)

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 727 (Comm) (04 March 2022)

The application is adjourned because the claim against SOCOL is not sufficiently pleaded and the cause of action against SOCOL is distinct from that against the first to sixth defendants, making it doubtful that SOCOL is a necessary or proper party. Fairness requires allowing the claimant to amend and properly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 727 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson and Partners Limited; First Defendant: John Forster Emmott; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Sixth Defendant: Sixth Defendant; Seventh Defendant: SOCOL (Seventh Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Without Notice Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application adjourned
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Necessary or Proper Party, Fraudulent Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Necessary or Proper Party Fraudulent Conspiracy Unjust Enrichment Restitution

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson and Partners Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

SOCOL (Seventh Defendant)

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Without Notice Application for Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seventh defendant (SOCOL) is a necessary or proper party for service out of jurisdiction under Practice Direction 6B paragraph 3.1(3)
  2. 2 Whether a cause of action is sufficiently pleaded against SOCOL
  3. 3 Whether the claims against SOCOL and the first to sixth defendants are sufficiently connected

Ratio Decidendi

The application is adjourned because the claim against SOCOL is not sufficiently pleaded and the cause of action against SOCOL is distinct from that against the first to sixth defendants, making it doubtful that SOCOL is a necessary or proper party. Fairness requires allowing the claimant to amend and properly formulate the application after the outcome of the strike out proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned

Orders

  • Application for permission to serve out of jurisdiction on the seventh defendant (SOCOL) is adjourned.
  • Liberty to the claimant to restore the application after the strike out proceedings are determined.