Mark Damien Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors.

Mark Damien Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors.

The Part 20 claim was an abuse of process as Mr Clarkson could and should have raised the arguments in earlier proceedings; the judge was correct to refuse withdrawal of admissions due to lack of full and frank explanation; the interest calculations were incorrect as the contractual provisions did not allow cumulative application of administration and default fees.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/part 20 Claimant: Mark Damian Clarkson; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant: Future Resources FZE; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant: Pradeep Singh; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant: Holy Group Limited; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant: Sudarshan Sadana; Defendant/appellant: Whiteacres Holdings Limited; Defendant/appellant: Tenacres Holdings Limited; Defendant/appellant: Andrew David Pickles; Defendant/appellant: Certus Holdings Limited; Claimant/appellant/part 20 Defendant: Asertis Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Pagefield Developments Limited; Defendant: Glenn Thomas; Defendant/respondent: John Unsworth; Defendant/respondent: Richard Luxmore; Defendant/respondent: Colin Howard Boswell; Defendant/respondent: MDSC (Liverpool) Limited; Defendant/respondent: TAYCO002 Limited; Part 20 Defendant: GMT Global (FZE); Part 20 Defendant: Vijay Pal Gandhi; Part 20 Defendant: Rajinder Kumar; Original Claimant (london Proceedings): FundingSecure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Part 20 claim struck out for abuse of process; admissions appeal dismissed; interest calculation appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Admissions, Interest Calculation, Settlement Agreements, Conspiracy, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Contract Law Fraud Property Law Abuse of Process Admissions Interest Calculation Settlement Agreements +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Damian Clarkson

Claimant/respondent/part 20 Claimant

Future Resources FZE

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant

Pradeep Singh

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant

Holy Group Limited

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant

Sudarshan Sadana

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Defendant

Whiteacres Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

Tenacres Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

Andrew David Pickles

Defendant/appellant

Certus Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

Asertis Ltd

Claimant/appellant/part 20 Defendant

Pagefield Developments Limited

Defendant/respondent

Glenn Thomas

Defendant

John Unsworth

Defendant/respondent

Richard Luxmore

Defendant/respondent

Colin Howard Boswell

Defendant/respondent

MDSC (Liverpool) Limited

Defendant/respondent

TAYCO002 Limited

Defendant/respondent

GMT Global (FZE)

Part 20 Defendant

Vijay Pal Gandhi

Part 20 Defendant

Rajinder Kumar

Part 20 Defendant

FundingSecure Limited

Original Claimant (london Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 claim was an abuse of process and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing withdrawal of admissions
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in awarding contractual interest at the claimed rates

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 20 claim was an abuse of process as Mr Clarkson could and should have raised the arguments in earlier proceedings; the judge was correct to refuse withdrawal of admissions due to lack of full and frank explanation; the interest calculations were incorrect as the contractual provisions did not allow cumulative application of administration and default fees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Part 20 claim struck out for abuse of process; admissions appeal dismissed; interest calculation appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Part 20 claim struck out in its entirety as abuse of process
  • Interest calculations to be recalculated on non-cumulative basis