Praxis Capital Ltd v Burgess
The court dismissed the application, holding that CPR3.1(7) does not provide jurisdiction to vary a final order in the circumstances presented. The proper route for the claimant is to bring a fresh claim, not to seek variation of the substantive judgment or costs order via this application.
- Parties
- Claimant: Praxis Capital Limited; Defendant: Jack Burgess
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Post Judgment Application to Vary Final Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Confidential Information, Post Termination Restrictions, Variation of Final Order, Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Praxis Capital Limited
Claimant
Jack Burgess
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application / Post Judgment Application to Vary Final Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction under CPR3.1(7) to vary a final order based on alleged new evidence of misuse of confidential information
- 2 Whether the application is procedurally appropriate or should be dismissed
- 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to relief for alleged breach of post-termination restrictions and misuse of confidential information
Ratio Decidendi
The court dismissed the application, holding that CPR3.1(7) does not provide jurisdiction to vary a final order in the circumstances presented. The proper route for the claimant is to bring a fresh claim, not to seek variation of the substantive judgment or costs order via this application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Application dismissed
- No variation of previous final order
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment