889 Trading Limited v Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors

889 Trading Limited v Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because 889 Trading Limited deliberately failed to comply with an unless order in previous proceedings, then sought to relitigate the same issues. The pleadings were also deficient, failing to disclose reasonable grounds or any recognisable cause of action. Disclosure was refused as the proceedings were struck out and the documents sought fell outside the scope of the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879.

Parties
Claimant: 889 Trading Limited; Defendant: Clydesdale Bank PLC; Defendant: Peter Charles Kelly; Defendant: David Joseph Duffy; Defendant: Gavin Rodney Opperman; Defendant: David Jonathan Bennett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Disclosure Applications
Outcome
claim struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Fraud Allegations, Misrepresentation, Fiduciary Duty, Accounting
Civil Procedure Banking Law Strike Out Application Abuse of Process Disclosure Fraud Allegations Misrepresentation Fiduciary Duty +1 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

889 Trading Limited

Claimant

Clydesdale Bank PLC

Defendant

Peter Charles Kelly

Defendant

David Joseph Duffy

Defendant

Gavin Rodney Opperman

Defendant

David Jonathan Bennett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Strike Out and Disclosure Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether disclosure should be ordered under CPR Part 31 and Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because 889 Trading Limited deliberately failed to comply with an unless order in previous proceedings, then sought to relitigate the same issues. The pleadings were also deficient, failing to disclose reasonable grounds or any recognisable cause of action. Disclosure was refused as the proceedings were struck out and the documents sought fell outside the scope of the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879.

Court Disposition

claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim Form and Particulars of Claim struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)
  • Disclosure Application dismissed