Kyrris & Ors v Burger King Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 753_2 (Ch) (04 April 2007)

Kyrris & Ors v Burger King Ltd & Ors [2007] EWHC 753_2 (Ch) (04 April 2007)

The claims against the administrators and RBS are struck out or dismissed because the claimants lack standing as shareholders, the assignment does not cover conspiracy claims, the notified claims were insufficiently specific, and the pleaded claims have no real prospect of success on the facts and law.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 753_2 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Eleni Kyrris; Claimant: Soto Kyrris; Claimant: Jacovos Kyrris; Claimant: Hector Kyrris; Defendant: Burger King Ltd; Defendant: Burger King Corporation; Defendant: Michael John Christopher Oldham; Defendant: Ian Christopher Schofield; Defendant: Derek John Oakley; Defendant: Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Defendant: HM Group (formerly Holroyd Meek Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery Division / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications by Defendants Against Claimants
Outcome
Claims against the administrators and RBS struck out and/or summary judgment granted in their favour.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Breach of Duty, Conspiracy, Assignment of Claims, Reflective Loss, Administration of Insolvent Partnerships
Insolvency Commercial Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Breach of Duty Conspiracy Assignment of Claims +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eleni Kyrris

Claimant

Soto Kyrris

Claimant

Jacovos Kyrris

Claimant

Hector Kyrris

Claimant

Burger King Ltd

Defendant

Burger King Corporation

Defendant

Michael John Christopher Oldham

Defendant

Ian Christopher Schofield

Defendant

Derek John Oakley

Defendant

Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Defendant

HM Group (formerly Holroyd Meek Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery Division / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications by Defendants Against Claimants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the administrators and RBS should be struck out or dismissed by summary judgment for having no real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have locus standi to bring claims as shareholders or assignees
  3. 3 Whether the administrators breached duties in the sale and compromise of partnership assets

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the administrators and RBS are struck out or dismissed because the claimants lack standing as shareholders, the assignment does not cover conspiracy claims, the notified claims were insufficiently specific, and the pleaded claims have no real prospect of success on the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Claims against the administrators and RBS struck out and/or summary judgment granted in their favour.

Orders

  • Claimants' application to admit further witness statement refused.
  • Claims against administrators and RBS dismissed.