Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors [2023] EWHC 856 (Ch) (10 March 2023)

Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors [2023] EWHC 856 (Ch) (10 March 2023)

The claimant's conspiracy claim should not be struck out at this stage as it may be cured by amendment and raises at least arguable issues; the defence to counterclaim raises triable issues regarding the provenance of funds, the validity of trust arrangements, and the chain of assignments, and is not suitable for summary judgment or strike out; both applications are dismissed subject to the claimant being given an opportunity to amend his pleadings.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 856 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pankim Kumar Patel; First Defendant: Minerva Services Delaware, Inc; Second Defendant: Paul Baxendale-Walker; Third Defendant: Mark Barry Slater
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Conspiracy (unlawful Means and Lawful Means), Trusts, Assignment of Claims, Abuse of Process, Costs Recovery
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Commercial Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Conspiracy (unlawful Means and Lawful Means) Trusts Assignment of Claims +2 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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pankim Kumar Patel

Claimant

Minerva Services Delaware, Inc

First Defendant

Paul Baxendale-Walker

Second Defendant

Mark Barry Slater

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's conspiracy claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds or actionable loss
  2. 2 Whether the defence to counterclaim should be struck out or summary judgment entered for the counterclaimant
  3. 3 Whether the chain of title and trust arrangements are sufficiently established for summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conspiracy claim should not be struck out at this stage as it may be cured by amendment and raises at least arguable issues; the defence to counterclaim raises triable issues regarding the provenance of funds, the validity of trust arrangements, and the chain of assignments, and is not suitable for summary judgment or strike out; both applications are dismissed subject to the claimant being given an opportunity to amend his pleadings.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to have opportunity to amend Points of Claim; draft amendments to be served on MSD for consideration.
  • No strike out or summary judgment granted on the counterclaim.