Deane & Ors v Coutts & Co & Anor [2018] EWHC 1657 (Ch) (05 July 2018)

Deane & Ors v Coutts & Co & Anor [2018] EWHC 1657 (Ch) (05 July 2018)

The particulars of claim, even as proposed to be amended, do not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action against the defendants on the pleaded bases of joint enterprise, agency, or notice. The claimants' case on secondary liability is not supported by the pleaded facts or law. The applications to strike out the claim are granted and permission to amend is refused.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1657 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Brian Deane; Claimant: Danny Murphy; Claimant: Robert Savage; Claimant: Jason Wilcox; Defendant: Coutts & Co; Defendant: The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out and Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to amend refused
Legal Topics
Equitable Compensation, Breach of Trust, Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Agency, Joint Enterprise, Notice, Dishonest Assistance, Limitation Act 1980
Equity Banking Law Trusts Agency Law Equitable Compensation Breach of Trust Fiduciary Duty Fraudulent Misrepresentation +5 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Deane

Claimant

Danny Murphy

Claimant

Robert Savage

Claimant

Jason Wilcox

Claimant

Coutts & Co

Defendant

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out and Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are secondarily liable for the wrongdoing of financial advisers under joint enterprise, agency, or notice principles
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendants
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of claim, even as proposed to be amended, do not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action against the defendants on the pleaded bases of joint enterprise, agency, or notice. The claimants' case on secondary liability is not supported by the pleaded facts or law. The applications to strike out the claim are granted and permission to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to amend refused

Orders

  • The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or CPR 24.2.
  • Permission to amend the particulars of claim is refused.