Getronics Holdings Emea BV & Anor v Logistic & Transport Consulting Co & Ors [2004] EWHC 808 (QB) (24 March 2004)

Getronics Holdings Emea BV & Anor v Logistic & Transport Consulting Co & Ors [2004] EWHC 808 (QB) (24 March 2004)

Summary judgment was appropriate for those heads of claim where the claimant's evidence (documentary and computer records) established overpayment or payment for unperformed services and the defendant failed to raise a credible defence. For other heads of claim where the defendant raised triable issues or produced some supporting evidence, summary judgment was refused and conditional or unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 808 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Getronics Holdings EMEA BV; Claimant/respondent: Getronics Holdings Belgium NV; Defendant/appellant: Logistic & Transport Consulting Co. (A Limited Partnership); Defendant/appellant: Logistic & Transport Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Bright Cloud Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment upheld in part, set aside in part; conditional and unconditional leave to defend granted on certain heads; costs apportioned two-thirds to claimant, one-third to defendants as costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Restitution for Money Had and Received, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Conditional Leave to Defend, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Restitution Summary Judgment Restitution for Money Had and Received Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence Conditional Leave to Defend +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Getronics Holdings EMEA BV

Claimant/respondent

Getronics Holdings Belgium NV

Claimant/respondent

Logistic & Transport Consulting Co. (A Limited Partnership)

Defendant/appellant

Logistic & Transport Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Bright Cloud Corporation

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment for the claimant in restitution was appropriate for each head of claim
  2. 2 Whether the documentary and computer evidence sufficed for summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had a real prospect of defending the claims or required leave to defend

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was appropriate for those heads of claim where the claimant's evidence (documentary and computer records) established overpayment or payment for unperformed services and the defendant failed to raise a credible defence. For other heads of claim where the defendant raised triable issues or produced some supporting evidence, summary judgment was refused and conditional or unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment upheld in part, set aside in part; conditional and unconditional leave to defend granted on certain heads; costs apportioned two-thirds to claimant, one-third to defendants as costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for claimant upheld for French and German invoices, Italian invoices, inventory management (conditional on payment into court), Netherlands shuttle charge, European stock movements, Belgian stock movements, and PUDO standardisation claims (conditional leave to defend on some items).
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted for excess picking claim.