Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd v Circus Apartments Ltd

Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd v Circus Apartments Ltd

The sole fact relied upon by the claimant—a statement by a junior employee of Bridgestreet—is equivocal and insufficient to tilt the balance and justify an inference of dishonesty. The pleaded case does not disclose a reasonable cause of action for dishonesty under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Parties
Claimant: Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited; Defendant: Circus Apartments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Strike Out
Outcome
Paragraph 9 of the reply struck out.
Legal Topics
Lease Breach, Alienation Clause, Pleading Requirements, Strike Out Applications, Disclosure

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited

Claimant

Circus Apartments Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Strike Out

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 9 of the reply discloses a reasonable cause of action for dishonesty against the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the facts pleaded justify an inference of dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the allegation of breach should have been pleaded in the particulars of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The sole fact relied upon by the claimant—a statement by a junior employee of Bridgestreet—is equivocal and insufficient to tilt the balance and justify an inference of dishonesty. The pleaded case does not disclose a reasonable cause of action for dishonesty under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Court Disposition

Paragraph 9 of the reply struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraph 9 of the reply is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.