Rollingson v Hollingsworth & Ors [2020] EWHC 3568 (QB) (22 December 2020)

Rollingson v Hollingsworth & Ors [2020] EWHC 3568 (QB) (22 December 2020)

The court held that while there were technical breaches in the application procedure, no real prejudice was caused to the Claimant, and the application would be determined on its merits. The court found that certain paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim lacked sufficient particularity or failed to plead primary facts necessary to support the inferences alleged, particularly regarding conspiracy, knowledge, and causation of loss. The court also addressed the 'without prejudice' privilege issue, determining that the Bidding Process was not protected by such privilege in the circumstances. The court concluded that some paragraphs should be struck out or subject to summary judgment, but...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3568
Parties
Claimant: Gregory John Rollingson; First Defendant: James Hollingsworth; Second Defendant: Steven Gasser; Third Defendant: Maya Bhatiani; Fourth Defendant: Joanne Wheeler; Fifth Defendant: Laurus Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Certain Paragraphs of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application granted in part; certain paragraphs struck out or subject to summary judgment, with permission to amend granted to the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Standards, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misuse of Confidential Information, Conspiracy, Economic Torts, Assignment of Claims
Civil Procedure Employment Law Company Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Standards Breach of Contract +5 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory John Rollingson

Claimant

James Hollingsworth

First Defendant

Steven Gasser

Second Defendant

Maya Bhatiani

Third Defendant

Joanne Wheeler

Fourth Defendant

Laurus Law Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Certain Paragraphs of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out or subject to summary judgment for failure to comply with pleading rules or for disclosing no reasonable grounds for claim
  2. 2 Whether the application for strike-out/summary judgment was procedurally defective
  3. 3 Whether the 'without prejudice' privilege applies to the Bidding Process (WP Issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while there were technical breaches in the application procedure, no real prejudice was caused to the Claimant, and the application would be determined on its merits. The court found that certain paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim lacked sufficient particularity or failed to plead primary facts necessary to support the inferences alleged, particularly regarding conspiracy, knowledge, and causation of loss. The court also addressed the 'without prejudice' privilege issue, determining that the Bidding Process was not protected by such privilege in the circumstances. The court concluded that some paragraphs should be struck out or subject to summary judgment, but...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; certain paragraphs struck out or subject to summary judgment, with permission to amend granted to the Claimant.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 6, 8, 80, 92, 99, and 116(f) of the Particulars of Claim struck out or subject to summary judgment to the extent set out in the judgment.
  • Claimant granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to address identified deficiencies.