Astle & Ors v CBRE Ltd

Astle & Ors v CBRE Ltd

Summary judgment and strike out applications dismissed; claimants have real prospects of establishing that losses are attributable, at least in part, to alleged breaches of duty by ERIML, CBRE, and Evans Randall Companies, and issues of scope of duty and causation are fact-sensitive and unsuitable for summary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Edward Astle & Others; Defendant: CBRE Limited; Claimant: Stephen Abbott & Others; Defendant: Evans Randall Investment Management Limited; Defendant: Evans Randall (UK) Limited; Defendant: Evans Randall International Limited; Claimant: Zarthustra Jal Amrolia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out Applications
Outcome
applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Misrepresentation, Scope of Duty, Damages, Financial Services, Prospectus Liability, Valuation Negligence, Tax Structuring
Tort Contract Financial Regulation Negligence Duty of Care Misrepresentation Scope of Duty Damages +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Astle & Others

Claimant

CBRE Limited

Defendant

Stephen Abbott & Others

Claimant

Evans Randall Investment Management Limited

Defendant

Evans Randall (UK) Limited

Defendant

Evans Randall International Limited

Defendant

Zarthustra Jal Amrolia

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ERIML and CBRE owed a duty of care to claimants regarding information in the Information Memorandum
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed fall within the scope of the duty as defined by SAAMCo
  3. 3 Whether Evans Randall Companies owed a duty of care regarding the structuring of Loan Notes as Non-QCBs for UK tax purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment and strike out applications dismissed; claimants have real prospects of establishing that losses are attributable, at least in part, to alleged breaches of duty by ERIML, CBRE, and Evans Randall Companies, and issues of scope of duty and causation are fact-sensitive and unsuitable for summary determination.

Court Disposition

applications for summary judgment and strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Claims to proceed to trial on all pleaded issues
  • No summary judgment or strike out granted to ERIML, CBRE, or Evans Randall Companies