Marsfield Automotive Inc v Siddiqi

Marsfield Automotive Inc v Siddiqi

Summary judgment is refused because the Defendant has a real prospect of success on four defences: contract by conduct, no total failure of consideration, counter-restitution, and ministerial receipt. The fourth defence is not improbable, so a conditional order is not appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Marsfield Automotive Inc; Defendant: Kamal Siddiqi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Claim / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Failure of Consideration, Ministerial Receipt, Counter Restitution, Contract by Conduct
Restitution Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Summary Judgment Failure of Consideration Ministerial Receipt Counter Restitution Contract by Conduct

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

Parties

Marsfield Automotive Inc

Claimant

Kamal Siddiqi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Claim / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted for restitution of £50m paid to the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether a binding contract existed by conduct
  3. 3 Whether there was a total failure of consideration or basis

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused because the Defendant has a real prospect of success on four defences: contract by conduct, no total failure of consideration, counter-restitution, and ministerial receipt. The fourth defence is not improbable, so a conditional order is not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment is dismissed
  • No conditional order is made