Mellor & Ors v Partridge & Anor [2012] EWHC 1415 (QB) (05 July 2012)

Mellor & Ors v Partridge & Anor [2012] EWHC 1415 (QB) (05 July 2012)

Claims against Frank Partridge are struck out as fanciful and time-barred. Claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities to third parties are struck out due to lack of realistic prospect and limitation. Personal and assigned claims against John Partridge are largely precluded by the rule against reflective loss. Claims based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches of duty relating to reputation and restoration costs are allowed to proceed to trial, but claims based on balance sheet and material contracts misrepresentation are struck out.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1415
Parties
Claimant: The Rt. Hon. David Mellor QC; Claimant: Christopher Jemmett; Claimant: Mark Law; Defendant: John Arthur Partridge; Defendant: Frank David Peregrine Partridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claims against Frank Partridge struck out; claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities struck out; personal and assigned claims against John Partridge largely struck out due to reflective loss; limited claims relating to reputation and restoration costs allowed to proceed to...
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Reflective Loss, Limitation, Assignment of Claims
Commercial Law Company Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Reflective Loss Limitation Assignment of Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 32
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Rt. Hon. David Mellor QC

Claimant

Christopher Jemmett

Claimant

Mark Law

Claimant

John Arthur Partridge

Defendant

Frank David Peregrine Partridge

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against Frank Partridge should be struck out as fanciful or time-barred
  2. 2 Whether claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities to third parties should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether personal and assigned claims against John Partridge are precluded by the rule against reflective loss

Ratio Decidendi

Claims against Frank Partridge are struck out as fanciful and time-barred. Claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities to third parties are struck out due to lack of realistic prospect and limitation. Personal and assigned claims against John Partridge are largely precluded by the rule against reflective loss. Claims based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches of duty relating to reputation and restoration costs are allowed to proceed to trial, but claims based on balance sheet and material contracts misrepresentation are struck out.

Court Disposition

Claims against Frank Partridge struck out; claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities struck out; personal and assigned claims against John Partridge largely struck out due to reflective loss; limited claims relating to reputation and restoration costs allowed to proceed to...

Orders

  • Claims against Frank Partridge struck out
  • Claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge in respect of contingent liabilities struck out