Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon & Ors

Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon & Ors

The settlement of the Common Design Claim under the Part 36 offer did not extinguish Marathon's defences to GIM's counterclaim, as the offer expressly excluded the counterclaim and did not preclude reliance on the same factual allegations in defence. At least one pleaded defence to the counterclaim (forfeiture of remuneration due to breach of fiduciary duty) was not affected by the settlement and must proceed to trial. Summary judgment was therefore refused.

Parties
Claimant: Marathon Asset Management LLP; Claimant: Marathon Asset Management (Services) Ltd; Defendant: James Seddon; Defendant: Louise Keeling; Defendant: Luke Bridgeman; Defendant: Julius Mort; Defendant: Jennifer Buchanan; Defendant: Global Investment Mandate (GIM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Application for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Settlement Agreements, Summary Judgment, Set Off, Fiduciary Duties, Counterclaims
Contract Law Civil Procedure Interpretation of Settlement Agreements Summary Judgment Set Off Fiduciary Duties Counterclaims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marathon Asset Management LLP

Claimant

Marathon Asset Management (Services) Ltd

Claimant

James Seddon

Defendant

Louise Keeling

Defendant

Luke Bridgeman

Defendant

Julius Mort

Defendant

Jennifer Buchanan

Defendant

Global Investment Mandate (GIM)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim and Counterclaim / Application for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance of a Part 36 settlement offer on the main claim precludes the claimant from defending a counterclaim on the same or related facts
  2. 2 Whether the settlement extinguishes defences to the counterclaim based on the same factual allegations as the settled claim
  3. 3 Interpretation of the scope and effect of the Part 36 offer

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement of the Common Design Claim under the Part 36 offer did not extinguish Marathon's defences to GIM's counterclaim, as the offer expressly excluded the counterclaim and did not preclude reliance on the same factual allegations in defence. At least one pleaded defence to the counterclaim (forfeiture of remuneration due to breach of fiduciary duty) was not affected by the settlement and must proceed to trial. Summary judgment was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused

Orders

  • GIM's application for summary judgment on the counterclaim is dismissed.
  • The counterclaim must proceed to trial.