Complete Facilities Solutions Ltd v Livingstone Consulting Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 571 (Ch) (14 March 2023)

Complete Facilities Solutions Ltd v Livingstone Consulting Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 571 (Ch) (14 March 2023)

The claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants were struck out because the pleadings failed to allege primary facts supporting dishonesty or wrongdoing, did not plead acts outside the defendants' constitutional roles, and did not establish a legal or factual basis for the causes of action. The claims had no real prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 571 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Complete Facilities Solutions Limited; First Defendant: Livingstone Consulting Limited; Second Defendant: James Espin; Third Defendant: Simon Tristan Wetherell; Fourth Defendant: Christopher Vallis; Fifth Defendant: Neil Anthony Bromley; Sixth Defendant: Martin McColl Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants struck out and/or summary judgment granted in their favour.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Directors' Liability, Procuring Breach of Contract, Deceit, Conspiracy to Injure, Joint Tortfeasorship, Quistclose Trust, Pleading Requirements, Fiduciary Duties
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Equity and Trusts Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Directors' Liability Procuring Breach of Contract +6 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complete Facilities Solutions Limited

Claimant

Livingstone Consulting Limited

First Defendant

James Espin

Second Defendant

Simon Tristan Wetherell

Third Defendant

Christopher Vallis

Fourth Defendant

Neil Anthony Bromley

Fifth Defendant

Martin McColl Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants for procuring breach of contract, deceit, conspiracy to injure, joint tortfeasorship, breach of tortious duty, and breach of fiduciary duty should be struck out or dismissed on summary judgment for lack of pleaded primary facts and/or legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants were struck out because the pleadings failed to allege primary facts supporting dishonesty or wrongdoing, did not plead acts outside the defendants' constitutional roles, and did not establish a legal or factual basis for the causes of action. The claims had no real prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants struck out and/or summary judgment granted in their favour.

Orders

  • All claims against the second, third, and fifth defendants are struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b) and/or summary judgment is granted under CPR 24.2(a)(i).