Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Ltd v Lan Support Ltd [2025] EWHC 586 (Comm) (14 March 2025)

Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Ltd v Lan Support Ltd [2025] EWHC 586 (Comm) (14 March 2025)

The Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on its change of position defence. The issues of whether the Defendant's payment to CMI constitutes a qualifying detriment, whether the loss is reversible, whether the Defendant assumed the risk, and the relevance of relative fault are not settled as a matter of law and require determination at trial. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 586 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Limited; Defendant: Lan Support Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (restitution, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs) / Summary Judgment and Security for Costs Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; matter to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Change of Position Defence, Summary Judgment, Void Contracts, Restitution for Money Had and Received, Fraudulent Transactions
Commercial Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Change of Position Defence Summary Judgment Void Contracts Restitution for Money Had and Received Fraudulent Transactions

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Limited

Claimant

Lan Support Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (restitution, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs) / Summary Judgment and Security for Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has a real prospect of succeeding on a change of position defence to a restitutionary claim for money paid under void contracts
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the Claimant for repayment of sums paid under void contracts
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's payment to a third party (CMI) constitutes a qualifying detriment for the change of position defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on its change of position defence. The issues of whether the Defendant's payment to CMI constitutes a qualifying detriment, whether the loss is reversible, whether the Defendant assumed the risk, and the relevance of relative fault are not settled as a matter of law and require determination at trial. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; matter to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Claimant's application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Defendant's application for security for costs not addressed in this judgment.