Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Patel & Ors

Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Patel & Ors

The Challenged Paragraphs in S&B's Amended Defence are struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for lack of permission to amend and under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds. S&B did not have permission to plead the paragraphs, which did not arise from the determination of the Privilege Application as required by prior orders. The allegations of illegality and the so-called 'undocumented arrangement' are not supported by admissible evidence, as the key documents are protected by without prejudice privilege and do not meet the threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception. The Aumkar fraud allegations, while not struck out for lack of evidentiary basis, do not support a defence...

Parties
Claimant: Barrowfen Properties Limited; First Defendant: Girish Dahyabhai Patel; Second Defendant: Stevens & Bolton LLP; Third Defendant: Barrowfen Properties II Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/amendment of Pleadings)
Outcome
Application granted in part; Challenged Paragraphs struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Illegality Defence, Privilege (legal Advice/litigation), Without Prejudice Communications, Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure, Fraud and Conspiracy Allegations
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Strike Out Applications Illegality Defence Privilege (legal Advice/litigation) Without Prejudice Communications Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barrowfen Properties Limited

Claimant

Girish Dahyabhai Patel

First Defendant

Stevens & Bolton LLP

Second Defendant

Barrowfen Properties II Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/amendment of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Challenged Paragraphs in the Amended Defence should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)
  2. 2 Whether S&B had permission to amend its Defence to include the Challenged Paragraphs
  3. 3 Whether S&B's allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and illegality have a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Challenged Paragraphs in S&B's Amended Defence are struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for lack of permission to amend and under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable grounds. S&B did not have permission to plead the paragraphs, which did not arise from the determination of the Privilege Application as required by prior orders. The allegations of illegality and the so-called 'undocumented arrangement' are not supported by admissible evidence, as the key documents are protected by without prejudice privilege and do not meet the threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception. The Aumkar fraud allegations, while not struck out for lack of evidentiary basis, do not support a defence...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; Challenged Paragraphs struck out

Orders

  • Challenged Paragraphs in S&B's Amended Defence are struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) and (a)
  • S&B not permitted to rely on the 'undocumented arrangement' or illegality defences as pleaded