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's form and supporting evidence, these did not cause real prejudice and could be waived. The impugned paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim were scrutinised for compliance with pleading rules and whether they disclosed reasonable grounds for the claims. The court found that some paragraphs lacked sufficient particularity or primary facts to support the inferences alleged, particularly regarding causation and knowledge, and thus were liable to be struck out or required amendment. However, the court also recognised the need for a generous approach pre-disclosure and allowed the Claimant the opportunity to amend...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3568 (QB)
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
Outcome
Application partially granted; certain paragraphs struck out or to be amended, but claims not dismissed outright.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misuse of Confidential Information, Conspiracy, Economic Torts, Assignment of Claims, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Employment Law Company Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty +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 21 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out or subject to summary judgment for non-compliance with pleading rules or lack of real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's reliance on 'without prejudice' material is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts support inferences of conspiracy, breach of duty, and causation of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, while there were technical breaches in the Application's form and supporting evidence, these did not cause real prejudice and could be waived. The impugned paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim were scrutinised for compliance with pleading rules and whether they disclosed reasonable grounds for the claims. The court found that some paragraphs lacked sufficient particularity or primary facts to support the inferences alleged, particularly regarding causation and knowledge, and thus were liable to be struck out or required amendment. However, the court also recognised the need for a generous approach pre-disclosure and allowed the Claimant the opportunity to amend...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted; certain paragraphs struck out or to be amended, but claims not dismissed outright.

Orders

  • The Claimant is permitted to amend the Particulars of Claim to cure identified deficiencies.
  • The impugned paragraphs are struck out to the extent identified in the judgment, unless amended within a specified period.