Athena Capital Fund Sicav - Fis SCA v Crownmark Ltd [2019] EWHC 1952 (Comm) (24 July 2019)

Athena Capital Fund Sicav - Fis SCA v Crownmark Ltd [2019] EWHC 1952 (Comm) (24 July 2019)

Summary judgment is refused because Crownmark's defence, though weak and inconsistent with documents, raises arguable disputes of fact regarding oral agreements and authority that require trial. Conditional leave to defend is granted, subject to payment into court of the interest claimed. Asset disclosure is refused as a condition.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1952 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis S.C.A; Defendant: Crownmark Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / First Case Management Conference; Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment application refused; conditional leave to defend granted; asset disclosure refused; strike out application not determined in this judgment.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conditional Orders, Asset Disclosure, Strike Out, Facility Agreement, Debt Assignment, Oral Agreements, Estoppel, Authority of Agents
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Conditional Orders Asset Disclosure Strike Out Facility Agreement Debt Assignment +3 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis S.C.A

Claimant

Crownmark Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / First Case Management Conference; Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted for the interest payment due in June 2017 under the Facility Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Facility Agreement was terminated by oral agreement in June 2016
  3. 3 Whether Crownmark's defence has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because Crownmark's defence, though weak and inconsistent with documents, raises arguable disputes of fact regarding oral agreements and authority that require trial. Conditional leave to defend is granted, subject to payment into court of the interest claimed. Asset disclosure is refused as a condition.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application refused; conditional leave to defend granted; asset disclosure refused; strike out application not determined in this judgment.

Orders

  • Crownmark must pay the full amount of the allegedly outstanding instalment of interest into court as a condition of defending the claim.
  • No order for asset disclosure is made.