Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Limited v Lan Support Limited

Somerset Equipment Finance (UK) Limited v Lan Support Limited

The Defendant’s change of position defence raises triable issues of law and fact, including whether payments to CMI under a void contract amount to a qualifying detriment, whether such detriment is reversible, and whether the Defendant assumed the risk of non-existent equipment. The law is unsettled and factual disputes exist, so summary judgment is inappropriate. Security for costs is justified due to the Claimant’s insolvency and lack of enforceable guarantee from its parent company.

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) / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment and Security for Costs)
Outcome
Claimant’s application for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant’s application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Change of Position Defence, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Void Contracts, Unjust Enrichment
Commercial Law Restitution Civil Procedure Change of Position Defence Summary Judgment Security for Costs Void Contracts Unjust Enrichment

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 9
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) / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment and Security for Costs)

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 had and received under void contracts
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the Claimant on its restitutionary claim
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant’s change of position defence raises triable issues of law and fact, including whether payments to CMI under a void contract amount to a qualifying detriment, whether such detriment is reversible, and whether the Defendant assumed the risk of non-existent equipment. The law is unsettled and factual disputes exist, so summary judgment is inappropriate. Security for costs is justified due to the Claimant’s insolvency and lack of enforceable guarantee from its parent company.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s application for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant’s application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Summary judgment refused; claim to proceed to trial.
  • Claimant to provide security for Defendant’s costs in the sum of £58,000.