Clancy Consulting Ltd v Derwent Holdings Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 762 (TCC) (29 March 2010)

Clancy Consulting Ltd v Derwent Holdings Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 762 (TCC) (29 March 2010)

The defendants' defence was inadequate, non-compliant with court orders, and failed to raise any real prospect of defending the claims for certified or uncertified sums. The claimant's entitlement to fees was established by contract, course of dealing, and certification process. Summary judgment was appropriate for those sums. The claim for management time damages was not suitable for summary judgment but the defence to it was weak, so leave to defend was granted on condition that the sum be paid into court.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 762 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Clancy Consulting Limited; Defendant: Derwent Holdings Limited; Defendant: Anglo International Holdings Limited; Defendant: Mardown Limited; Defendant: Cashtal Properties Limited; Defendant: Mount Murray Country Club Limited; Defendant: Cashtal Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Professional Fees / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part; conditional leave to defend management time claim
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Professional Fees, Remuneration Basis, Certification of Sums, Management Time Damages
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings Professional Fees Remuneration Basis Certification of Sums Management Time Damages

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clancy Consulting Limited

Claimant

Derwent Holdings Limited

Defendant

Anglo International Holdings Limited

Defendant

Mardown Limited

Defendant

Cashtal Properties Limited

Defendant

Mount Murray Country Club Limited

Defendant

Cashtal Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Professional Fees / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence should be struck out for non-compliance and inadequacy
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted for certified and uncertified sums
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for management time

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' defence was inadequate, non-compliant with court orders, and failed to raise any real prospect of defending the claims for certified or uncertified sums. The claimant's entitlement to fees was established by contract, course of dealing, and certification process. Summary judgment was appropriate for those sums. The claim for management time damages was not suitable for summary judgment but the defence to it was weak, so leave to defend was granted on condition that the sum be paid into court.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; conditional leave to defend management time claim

Orders

  • Summary judgment for claimant for £329,525 plus VAT (certified sums)
  • Summary judgment for claimant for £68,565 plus VAT (uncertified sums)