Bezant v Rausing & Ors [2007] EWHC 1118 (QB) (14 May 2007)

Bezant v Rausing & Ors [2007] EWHC 1118 (QB) (14 May 2007)

None of the claims disclosed reasonable grounds or real prospect of success. The alleged contract was unenforceable and not evidenced; the deceit claim was unparticularised and unsupported; the libel claims failed due to lack of publication by Dr Rausing and qualified privilege; the misfeasance claims were individually and collectively unsustainable, and the English court lacked jurisdiction over claims relating to the Portuguese company.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1118
Parties
Claimant: Richard John Bezant; Defendant: Hans Anders Rausing; Defendants: Defendants 2-8, 10, 11, 14, 16; Defendants: Defendants 9, 12, 13, 15; Defendant: Defendant 17 (Mr Cork)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claims struck out and summary judgment entered for defendants.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Deceit, Libel, Misfeasance, Duty of Care, Qualified Privilege, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Contract Law Tort Law Employment Law Defamation Company Law Insolvency Law Strike Out Summary Judgment +8 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 6 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard John Bezant

Claimant

Hans Anders Rausing

Defendant

Defendants 2-8, 10, 11, 14, 16

Defendants

Defendants 9, 12, 13, 15

Defendants

Defendant 17 (Mr Cork)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements of case disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claims
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of succeeding on the claims
  3. 3 Whether the claims should be struck out or summary judgment entered

Ratio Decidendi

None of the claims disclosed reasonable grounds or real prospect of success. The alleged contract was unenforceable and not evidenced; the deceit claim was unparticularised and unsupported; the libel claims failed due to lack of publication by Dr Rausing and qualified privilege; the misfeasance claims were individually and collectively unsustainable, and the English court lacked jurisdiction over claims relating to the Portuguese company.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and summary judgment entered for defendants.

Orders

  • Declaration that English court lacks jurisdiction over claims relating to removal as director of Portuguese company.
  • Claims against defendants 9-12 relating to Portuguese company dismissed.