VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 1508 (Ch) (26 June 2024)

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC v Evelyn Partners LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 1508 (Ch) (26 June 2024)

The claimant is entitled to rely on categories of potential purchasers and is not obliged to plead specifics for each individual; the pleadings are not plainly unarguable and deficiencies may be cured by amendment. The application to strike out is refused, except for inconsistent or irrelevant passages, for which the claimant is permitted a short period to amend.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1508 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: VE VEGAS INVESTORS IV LLC; Defendant: EVELYN PARTNERS LLP (formerly known as SMITH & WILLIAMSON LLP); Defendant: HENRY SHINNERS; Defendant: FINBARR O'CONNELL; Defendant: COLIN HARDMAN; Defendant: MARK FORD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application Under CPR 3.4(2) / Post Pleadings Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to strike out refused except for inconsistent or irrelevant passages; claimant permitted to amend.
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Statements of Case, Duties of Administrators, Identification of Potential Purchasers, Adequacy of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Insolvency Professional Negligence Strike Out of Statements of Case Duties of Administrators Identification of Potential Purchasers Adequacy of Pleadings

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VE VEGAS INVESTORS IV LLC

Claimant

EVELYN PARTNERS LLP (formerly known as SMITH & WILLIAMSON LLP)

Defendant

HENRY SHINNERS

Defendant

FINBARR O'CONNELL

Defendant

COLIN HARDMAN

Defendant

MARK FORD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application Under CPR 3.4(2) / Post Pleadings Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's statements of case should be struck out for failing to adequately identify potential purchasers
  2. 2 Whether reliance on categories of potential purchasers is permissible
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is obliged to plead specifics for each potential purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to rely on categories of potential purchasers and is not obliged to plead specifics for each individual; the pleadings are not plainly unarguable and deficiencies may be cured by amendment. The application to strike out is refused, except for inconsistent or irrelevant passages, for which the claimant is permitted a short period to amend.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused except for inconsistent or irrelevant passages; claimant permitted to amend.

Orders

  • Claimant allowed a short period to propose amendments to remedy inconsistencies and deficiencies in the November 2023 Replies.
  • Passages inconsistent with the claimant's primary case or irrelevant are liable to be struck out unless amended.