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 time-barred, fanciful, or unsupported by evidence. Claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge for contingent liabilities are struck out for lack of real prospect and absence of loss. Personal and Amor-assigned claims against John Partridge are largely struck out due to the rule against reflective loss. Only limited claims for loss to PFA's reputation and certain direct losses (e.g., restoration costs) against John Partridge survive to trial. The balance sheet and material contracts misrepresentation claims are unsustainable and struck out.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1415 (QB)
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 (queen's Bench Division) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claims against Frank Partridge struck out; claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge for contingent liabilities struck out; most personal and Amor-assigned claims against John Partridge struck out; limited claims against John Partridge allowed to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Reflective Loss, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Company Law Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Reflective Loss Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 41
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 (queen's Bench Division) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty should be struck out or allowed to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether claims are time-barred or precluded by the rule against reflective loss
  3. 3 Whether there is a realistic prospect of success on the pleaded facts

Ratio Decidendi

Claims against Frank Partridge are struck out as time-barred, fanciful, or unsupported by evidence. Claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge for contingent liabilities are struck out for lack of real prospect and absence of loss. Personal and Amor-assigned claims against John Partridge are largely struck out due to the rule against reflective loss. Only limited claims for loss to PFA's reputation and certain direct losses (e.g., restoration costs) against John Partridge survive to trial. The balance sheet and material contracts misrepresentation claims are unsustainable and struck out.

Court Disposition

Claims against Frank Partridge struck out; claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge for contingent liabilities struck out; most personal and Amor-assigned claims against John Partridge struck out; limited claims against John Partridge allowed to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Strike out of all claims against Frank Partridge
  • Strike out of claims as PFA's assignee against John Partridge for contingent liabilities