Renpower Investments Ltd v Clark Willmott LLP & Anor [2013] EWHC 800 (QB) (17 April 2013)

Renpower Investments Ltd v Clark Willmott LLP & Anor [2013] EWHC 800 (QB) (17 April 2013)

There was no relevant fresh evidence because the Applicant was aware of the facts at the time of the Master's judgment, and the alleged new evidence did not affect the satisfaction of the SPA condition. Even if there was a breach, it was waived by the Applicant proceeding with completion. Permission to appeal and extension of time are refused.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 800 (QB)
Parties
Applicant/second Defendant: Renpower Investments Ltd; Claimant: Clark Willmott LLP; Respondent/first Defendant: Larkfleet Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing of Application for Permission to Appeal, Out of Time, With Alleged Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Share Purchase Agreement, Conditions Precedent, Accreditation, Fresh Evidence, Waiver of Contractual Rights
Contract Law Commercial Law Share Purchase Agreement Conditions Precedent Accreditation Fresh Evidence Waiver of Contractual Rights

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renpower Investments Ltd

Applicant/second Defendant

Clark Willmott LLP

Claimant

Larkfleet Ltd

Respondent/first Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing of Application for Permission to Appeal, Out of Time, With Alleged Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence justifies permission to appeal the Master's order
  2. 2 Whether the condition precedent in the SPA was satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant waived any breach of the SPA condition

Ratio Decidendi

There was no relevant fresh evidence because the Applicant was aware of the facts at the time of the Master's judgment, and the alleged new evidence did not affect the satisfaction of the SPA condition. Even if there was a breach, it was waived by the Applicant proceeding with completion. Permission to appeal and extension of time are refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; extension of time refused.