Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 1481 (Comm) (01 July 2022)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott & Ors [2022] EWHC 1481 (Comm) (01 July 2022)

The claim against the 6th defendant is struck out and summary judgment granted because there is no evidence of any involvement or receipt of funds, and no reasonable grounds for the claim. The particulars of claim do not properly plead any cause of action in fraud or unjust enrichment against the 2nd to 6th defendants. A claim in unjust enrichment cannot succeed where payments were made pursuant to subsisting court orders, and no application has been made to set aside those orders for fraud. The claim is an abuse of process and discloses no reasonable grounds against the 2nd to 6th defendants.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1481 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited; First Defendant: John Forster Emmott; Second Defendant: M. B. Robinson for the Estate of Michael Lyndon Beverly Robinson (Deceased); Third Defendant: MR Law Limited; Fourth Defendant: Kerman & Co, LLP; Fifth Defendant: Phillip Alexander Shepherd QC; Sixth Defendant: Shepherd Legal Limited; Seventh Defendant: Sokol Holdings Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (strike Out/summary Judgment Applications) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment by 2nd to 6th Defendants
Outcome
Claim against the 6th defendant struck out and summary judgment granted; claims against 2nd to 5th defendants struck out and/or summary judgment granted.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Unjust Enrichment, Indemnity Principle, Fraudulent Costs Claims, Collateral Attack on Judgments
Civil Procedure Costs Restitution Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Unjust Enrichment Indemnity Principle Fraudulent Costs Claims +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

First Defendant

M. B. Robinson for the Estate of Michael Lyndon Beverly Robinson (Deceased)

Second Defendant

MR Law Limited

Third Defendant

Kerman & Co, LLP

Fourth Defendant

Phillip Alexander Shepherd QC

Fifth Defendant

Shepherd Legal Limited

Sixth Defendant

Sokol Holdings Inc

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (strike Out/summary Judgment Applications) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment by 2nd to 6th Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds against the 2nd to 6th defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the 6th defendant is struck out and summary judgment granted because there is no evidence of any involvement or receipt of funds, and no reasonable grounds for the claim. The particulars of claim do not properly plead any cause of action in fraud or unjust enrichment against the 2nd to 6th defendants. A claim in unjust enrichment cannot succeed where payments were made pursuant to subsisting court orders, and no application has been made to set aside those orders for fraud. The claim is an abuse of process and discloses no reasonable grounds against the 2nd to 6th defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim against the 6th defendant struck out and summary judgment granted; claims against 2nd to 5th defendants struck out and/or summary judgment granted.

Orders

  • Claim against Shepherd Legal Limited (6th defendant) dismissed with summary judgment.
  • Claims against 2nd to 5th defendants struck out and/or summary judgment granted.