Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon & Ors [2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm) (21 October 2016)

Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon & Ors [2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm) (21 October 2016)

Acceptance of the Part 36 offer settling the Common Design Claim did not extinguish Marathon's defence to GIM's counterclaim, as the counterclaim was expressly excluded from the scope of the settlement and Marathon's defence relied on separate grounds not covered by the settlement.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm)
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
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Application for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused; counterclaim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Settlement Interpretation, Summary Judgment, Counterclaim, Fiduciary Duty, Set Off
Contract Law Civil Procedure Settlement Interpretation Summary Judgment Counterclaim Fiduciary Duty Set Off

Source-derived case record

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 5 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

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Application for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does acceptance of a Part 36 settlement offer extinguish the claimant's defence to the counterclaim?
  2. 2 Is Marathon entitled to defend GIM's counterclaim based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and contract?

Ratio Decidendi

Acceptance of the Part 36 offer settling the Common Design Claim did not extinguish Marathon's defence to GIM's counterclaim, as the counterclaim was expressly excluded from the scope of the settlement and Marathon's defence relied on separate grounds not covered by the settlement.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused; counterclaim to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • GIM's application for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Issues raised by Marathon's defence to counterclaim must go to trial.