Ikea Ltd & Ors v Brown & Ors [2009] EWHC 955 (Comm) (07 May 2009)

Ikea Ltd & Ors v Brown & Ors [2009] EWHC 955 (Comm) (07 May 2009)

The counterclaim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution (criminal or civil), malicious falsehood, or maliciously procuring arrest because it is incoherent, does not plead the necessary legal elements, and does not address the factual basis relied upon by the Claimants. English law...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 955 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: IKEA Limited; Claimant: IKEA Wholesale Limited; Claimant: IKEA Trading Services (UK) Limited; Defendant: John Brown; Defendant: Maria Brenda Brown; Defendant: Paul Hoult; Defendant: Amanda Hoult; Defendant: Gerold Hoop; Defendant: Paul Appleby Walker; Defendant: Adam Hauxwell-Smith; Defendant: Leisa Hauxwell-Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim and Counterclaim / Application to Strike Out Counterclaim
Outcome
Counterclaim struck out
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Malicious Falsehood, Civil Procedure—striking Out Pleadings
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Malicious Falsehood Civil Procedure—striking Out Pleadings

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IKEA Limited

Claimant

IKEA Wholesale Limited

Claimant

IKEA Trading Services (UK) Limited

Claimant

John Brown

Defendant

Maria Brenda Brown

Defendant

Paul Hoult

Defendant

Amanda Hoult

Defendant

Gerold Hoop

Defendant

Paul Appleby Walker

Defendant

Adam Hauxwell-Smith

Defendant

Leisa Hauxwell-Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim and Counterclaim / Application to Strike Out Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sixth Defendant's counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution (criminal and civil), malicious falsehood, or maliciously procuring arrest against the Claimants.

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action for malicious prosecution (criminal or civil), malicious falsehood, or maliciously procuring arrest because it is incoherent, does not plead the necessary legal elements, and does not address the factual basis relied upon by the Claimants. English law does not recognize a general tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings, and the counterclaim does not meet the requirements for malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim struck out

Orders

  • The Sixth Defendant's counterclaim is struck out.