Getronics Holdings Emea BV & Anor v Logistic & Transport Consulting Co & Ors

Getronics Holdings Emea BV & Anor v Logistic & Transport Consulting Co & Ors

Summary judgment was appropriate for those heads of claim where the claimant's evidence was clear, documentary or computer-based, and the defendant failed to raise a credible or specific defence. For certain heads of claim (excess picking, inventory management, European stock movements, Belgian stock movements, PUDO standardisation), the defendant raised sufficient issues or produced some evidence to warrant conditional or unconditional leave to defend, subject to payment into court.

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
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Restitution for Money Had and Received, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Conditional and Unconditional Leave to Defend, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Restitution Summary Judgment Restitution for Money Had and Received Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence Conditional and Unconditional 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 6
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 was properly granted for the claimant for sums paid under invoices alleged not to be due
  2. 2 Whether the documentary and computer evidence adduced by the claimant was sufficient for summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant raised triable issues warranting leave to defend certain heads of claim

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was appropriate for those heads of claim where the claimant's evidence was clear, documentary or computer-based, and the defendant failed to raise a credible or specific defence. For certain heads of claim (excess picking, inventory management, European stock movements, Belgian stock movements, PUDO standardisation), the defendant raised sufficient issues or produced some evidence to warrant conditional or unconditional leave to defend, subject to payment into court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Summary judgment upheld for most heads of claim in favour of the claimant.
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to the defendant on the excess picking head of claim.