Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architects Ltd & Ors

Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architects Ltd & Ors

The claim, save as against Mr. Anderson, should not be struck out at this stage because it cannot be said to be fanciful or without realistic prospect of success, and the limitation issue cannot be determined without evidence as to the value of the claimant's rights at contract entry. However, the claim against Mr. Anderson is struck out as there is no reasonably arguable case against him. The action may proceed against the other defendants only on condition that the claimant pays £450,000 into court within 28 days, failing which the action will be dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Venulum Property Investments Ltd; 1st Defendant: Space Architects Ltd; 2nd Defendant: MRP Development Services Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Mark Kevin Willmott; 4th Defendant: Richard Stewart Anderson; 5th Defendant: Robin John Ungemuth; 6th Defendant: Abbeyross Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim against Mr. Anderson struck out; claim against other defendants allowed to proceed on condition of payment into court
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Duty of Care, Fiduciary Duty, Assignment of Rights, Personal Liability of Directors
Tort Contract Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation Period Duty of Care +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venulum Property Investments Ltd

Claimant

Space Architects Ltd

1st Defendant

MRP Development Services Ltd

2nd Defendant

Mark Kevin Willmott

3rd Defendant

Richard Stewart Anderson

4th Defendant

Robin John Ungemuth

5th Defendant

Abbeyross Ltd

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or has a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Acts
  3. 3 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim, save as against Mr. Anderson, should not be struck out at this stage because it cannot be said to be fanciful or without realistic prospect of success, and the limitation issue cannot be determined without evidence as to the value of the claimant's rights at contract entry. However, the claim against Mr. Anderson is struck out as there is no reasonably arguable case against him. The action may proceed against the other defendants only on condition that the claimant pays £450,000 into court within 28 days, failing which the action will be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against Mr. Anderson struck out; claim against other defendants allowed to proceed on condition of payment into court

Orders

  • Claim against Mr. Anderson dismissed as fanciful
  • Claim against other defendants not struck out, subject to payment of £450,000 into court within 28 days