Patel & Anor v Patel & Ors [2019] EWHC 2644 (Ch) (04 October 2019)

Patel & Anor v Patel & Ors [2019] EWHC 2644 (Ch) (04 October 2019)

The court held that the second and fourth defendants must provide clarification in their defences for items 1, 3, 5, and 7(a) in addition to those previously ordered, as their current pleadings failed to comply with CPR rule 16.5 by providing bare denials without reasons. No order was made in respect of item 2 as it was not a breach of CPR rule 16.5.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2644 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alpesh Patel; Claimant: Bishops Walk Developments Limited; Defendant: Ashank Patel; Defendant: Mohammed Babar Iqbal; Defendant: Fourstream Capital Limited; Defendant: Equity Real Estate (Aries) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Supplemental Judgment on Application for Revised Defences
Outcome
Order granted in part
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Defence Requirements, CPR Rule 16.5, Shareholder Disputes
Civil Procedure Pleadings Defence Requirements CPR Rule 16.5 Shareholder Disputes

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

Parties

Alpesh Patel

Claimant

Bishops Walk Developments Limited

Claimant

Ashank Patel

Defendant

Mohammed Babar Iqbal

Defendant

Fourstream Capital Limited

Defendant

Equity Real Estate (Aries) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Supplemental Judgment on Application for Revised Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defences filed by the second and fourth defendants comply with CPR rule 16.5
  2. 2 Whether further clarification is required in relation to specific items in the schedule of complaints

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the second and fourth defendants must provide clarification in their defences for items 1, 3, 5, and 7(a) in addition to those previously ordered, as their current pleadings failed to comply with CPR rule 16.5 by providing bare denials without reasons. No order was made in respect of item 2 as it was not a breach of CPR rule 16.5.

Court Disposition

Order granted in part

Orders

  • Second and fourth defendants (Babar and Equity Aries) to file and serve revised defences clarifying their positions on items 1, 3, 5, 7(a), 4, 6, 7(b), and 8 to 12A of the schedule, in compliance with CPR rule 16.5.
  • No order made in respect of item 2.