Yerbury v Azets Holdings Limited
The claim was struck out because it was not brought against the correct defendants (the receivers personally), the assignment did not cover a cause of action against Azets Holdings Limited, and there was no legal basis for vicarious liability or estoppel against Azets. The limitation period issue could not be cured...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Yerbury; Defendant: Azets Holdings Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim struck out and/or summary judgment granted for the defendant
- Legal Topics
- LPA Receivers, Limitation Periods, Assignment of Claims, Vicarious Liability, Estoppel
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Yerbury
Claimant
Azets Holdings Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim was properly constituted against the correct defendant
- 2 Whether the claim was time-barred
- 3 Whether the assignment covered a cause of action against Azets Holdings Limited
Ratio Decidendi
The claim was struck out because it was not brought against the correct defendants (the receivers personally), the assignment did not cover a cause of action against Azets Holdings Limited, and there was no legal basis for vicarious liability or estoppel against Azets. The limitation period issue could not be cured by joinder due to the terms of the standstill agreement.
Court Disposition
Claim struck out and/or summary judgment granted for the defendant
Orders
- Claim struck out
- Summary judgment granted for the defendant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment