Swycher v Vakil & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1668 (29 October 2002)

Swycher v Vakil & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1668 (29 October 2002)

The deed of 14 October 1994 was not vitiated by duress or undue influence; the counterclaim did not provide a real prospect of defence or justify staying enforcement; however, there was an arguable issue as to whether the indemnity for £494,618.82 was properly payable under the deed, warranting permission to appeal on that sum.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1668
Parties
Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent: Stuart Simon Swycher; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Mohomad Iqbal Abdool Karim Vakil; Defendants to the Part 20 Counterclaim: Swycher & Co (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment and Related Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Duress, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Counterclaim, Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Indemnity Clauses
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Duress Undue Influence Misrepresentation Counterclaim Enforcement of Settlement Agreements +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Simon Swycher

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent

Mohomad Iqbal Abdool Karim Vakil

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Swycher & Co (A Firm)

Defendants to the Part 20 Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Summary Judgment and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of 14 October 1994 was unenforceable due to duress, undue influence, or misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the sums claimed under the deed, particularly £494,618.82, were recoverable
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim raised by Mr Vakil had sufficient merit to affect enforcement of the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of 14 October 1994 was not vitiated by duress or undue influence; the counterclaim did not provide a real prospect of defence or justify staying enforcement; however, there was an arguable issue as to whether the indemnity for £494,618.82 was properly payable under the deed, warranting permission to appeal on that sum.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part; refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted as to £494,618.82 and as to costs order.
  • Permission to appeal refused as to £640,800.