Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 262 (10 February 2023)

Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 262 (10 February 2023)

The application to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the evidence of impecuniosity could and should have been provided to the judge below, and was inadequate in detail and support. The refusal to extend time for compliance with the unless order was justified as no good reason for non-payment was shown. The enforceability of clause 21.2 did not undermine the basis for liability on the pleaded economic torts, so the judgment on liability stood.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 262
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Credico Marketing Limited; Claimant/respondent: Perdm Trading Limited; Defendant/appellant: Benjamin Gregory Lambert; Defendant/appellant: S5 Marketing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Application to adduce fresh evidence and permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Restrictive Covenants, Economic Torts, Impecuniosity, Adducing Fresh Evidence, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Unless Orders Relief From Sanctions Restrictive Covenants Economic Torts Impecuniosity +2 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

Credico Marketing Limited

Claimant/respondent

Perdm Trading Limited

Claimant/respondent

Benjamin Gregory Lambert

Defendant/appellant

S5 Marketing Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an extension of time for compliance with an unless order due to non-payment of costs
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence of impecuniosity should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the enforceability of clause 21.2 of the Trading Agreement affects liability for economic torts

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the evidence of impecuniosity could and should have been provided to the judge below, and was inadequate in detail and support. The refusal to extend time for compliance with the unless order was justified as no good reason for non-payment was shown. The enforceability of clause 21.2 did not undermine the basis for liability on the pleaded economic torts, so the judgment on liability stood.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce fresh evidence and permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Order for costs summarily assessed in the sum of £15,000 payable within 14 days.