Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor & Ors

Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor & Ors

The Further Particulars do not disclose a coherent case that the alleged misrepresentations caused the claimed losses because the claimant had sufficient headroom and alternative sources of finance, and the case advanced is inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and the claimant's own evidence. The claimant failed to explain these inconsistencies or allege the absence of alternative finance, rendering the case unsustainable.

Parties
Claimant: Gladman Commercial Properties; First Defendant: Fisher Hargreaves Proctor; Second Defendant: HEB Chartered Surveyors; Third Defendant: David Hargreaves; Fourth Defendant: Jonathan Paul Thomas Bishop
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Particulars of Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Causation, Misrepresentation, Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Striking Out Pleadings Causation Misrepresentation Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Commercial Properties

Claimant

Fisher Hargreaves Proctor

First Defendant

HEB Chartered Surveyors

Second Defendant

David Hargreaves

Third Defendant

Jonathan Paul Thomas Bishop

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Further Particulars disclose a coherent case that the alleged misrepresentations caused the claimed losses
  2. 2 Whether the inconsistencies in the claimant's case render it unsustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The Further Particulars do not disclose a coherent case that the alleged misrepresentations caused the claimed losses because the claimant had sufficient headroom and alternative sources of finance, and the case advanced is inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and the claimant's own evidence. The claimant failed to explain these inconsistencies or allege the absence of alternative finance, rendering the case unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Particulars of Claim struck out

Orders

  • The Particulars of Claim are struck out pursuant to CPR r. 3.4(2)(a).