Quinn Infrastructure Services Ltd v Sullivan & Os [2019] EWHC 2863 (Comm) (21 November 2019)

Quinn Infrastructure Services Ltd v Sullivan & Os [2019] EWHC 2863 (Comm) (21 November 2019)

Claimant failed to prove ownership of licensed products and did not establish that licence fees charged by defendants were unreasonable. No recoverable loss was proved in respect of alleged overcharging. Claims for restitution, damages, and conspiracy fail as foundation factual issues were not established. Judgment for defendants.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2863 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Quinn Infrastructure Services Limited; First Defendant: Stephen Sullivan; Second Defendant: Steven Cairns; Third Defendant: IT Excellence UK Limited; Fourth Defendant: ITXL Software Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duties, Unjust Enrichment, Deceit, Inducement of Breach, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Assessment of Reasonable Fees, Software Intellectual Property, Assignment of Causes of Action
Commercial Law Contract Law Restitution Employment Law Equity Breach of Contract Fiduciary Duties Unjust Enrichment +6 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinn Infrastructure Services Limited

Claimant

Stephen Sullivan

First Defendant

Steven Cairns

Second Defendant

IT Excellence UK Limited

Third Defendant

ITXL Software Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants overcharged claimant for IT services and software products
  2. 2 Whether licensed products were owned by claimant or defendants
  3. 3 Whether licence fees charged were reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove ownership of licensed products and did not establish that licence fees charged by defendants were unreasonable. No recoverable loss was proved in respect of alleged overcharging. Claims for restitution, damages, and conspiracy fail as foundation factual issues were not established. Judgment for defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for defendants.

Orders

  • Claimant's claims dismissed.
  • No order for damages or restitution.