Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors

Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors

No error of law was identified in the Master’s decision to grant summary judgment and refuse permission to amend; the claimants had no viable cause of action under the relevant agreements; the costs order was appropriate given the circumstances and incurred costs.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Radford; Claimant: The Michael Radford Partnership; Defendant: Alejandra Frade; Defendant: Bruce St Clair; Defendant: Jose Frade; Defendant: Gheko Films SL; Defendant: Gheko Sur; Defendant: Workhorse Entertainment Limited; Defendant: Integral Films GmbH; Defendant: Subotica Limited; Defendant: Valentina Film Productions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdiction, Costs Assessment
Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Strike Out Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdiction Costs Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Radford

Claimant

The Michael Radford Partnership

Claimant

Alejandra Frade

Defendant

Bruce St Clair

Defendant

Jose Frade

Defendant

Gheko Films SL

Defendant

Gheko Sur

Defendant

Workhorse Entertainment Limited

Defendant

Integral Films GmbH

Defendant

Subotica Limited

Defendant

Valentina Film Productions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting summary judgment and refusing permission to amend the claim
  2. 2 Whether the costs order was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

No error of law was identified in the Master’s decision to grant summary judgment and refuse permission to amend; the claimants had no viable cause of action under the relevant agreements; the costs order was appropriate given the circumstances and incurred costs.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Fourth and Fifth Defendants upheld
  • Refusal to permit late amendment upheld