Irish Response Ltd v Direct Beauty Products Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 37 (QB) (21 January 2011)

Irish Response Ltd v Direct Beauty Products Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 37 (QB) (21 January 2011)

The Unlawful Means Claim was struck out by consent as disclosing no reasonable grounds. The Conspiracy Claim was struck out as irrelevant and an abuse of process. The Danish court's judgment that there was no breach of the distributorship agreement by PMI was binding and precluded the claimant from relitigating the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 37
Parties
Claimant: Irish Response Limited; Defendant: Direct Beauty Products Limited; Defendant: Simon Gook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Discharge/variation of Freezing and Search Orders)
Outcome
Defendants' applications granted; claimant's claims struck out; freezing and search orders discharged.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions), Search Orders (anton Piller Orders), Inducement of Breach of Contract, Abuse of Process, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Tort Law Contract Law Private International Law Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions) Search Orders (anton Piller Orders) Inducement of Breach of Contract Abuse of Process +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Response Limited

Claimant

Direct Beauty Products Limited

Defendant

Simon Gook

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Discharge/variation of Freezing and Search Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing and search orders should be discharged or varied
  2. 2 Whether the Unlawful Means Claim and Conspiracy Claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for defendants
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case for inducement of breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Unlawful Means Claim was struck out by consent as disclosing no reasonable grounds. The Conspiracy Claim was struck out as irrelevant and an abuse of process. The Danish court's judgment that there was no breach of the distributorship agreement by PMI was binding and precluded the claimant from relitigating the issue in England. There was no good arguable case for inducement of breach of contract. The freezing and search orders were discharged as the requirements for their continuation were not met, including lack of risk of dissipation and material non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications granted; claimant's claims struck out; freezing and search orders discharged.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 31 to 35 (Unlawful Means Claim) and 36 to 41 (Conspiracy Claim) of the Particulars of Claim struck out.
  • Summary judgment entered for defendants on those claims.