Fox v Hall

Fox v Hall

The defendant did not undertake personal liability under the Wilson Agreement; he signed solely on behalf of Manage Security Services Ltd. No credible evidence established personal assurances or fraudulent conduct justifying piercing the corporate veil. The harassment claim failed as the conduct did not meet the statutory threshold for harassment, and witness immunity applied to complaints made to the police. Any contractual claims were statute-barred by limitation.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Fox; Defendant: Michael Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Harassment, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Limitation of Actions
Contract Law Tort Law Assignment of Claims Harassment Piercing the Corporate Veil Limitation of Actions

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

Parties

Kevin Fox

Claimant

Michael Hall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was personally liable under the Wilson Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 succeeds
  3. 3 Whether any claims are statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not undertake personal liability under the Wilson Agreement; he signed solely on behalf of Manage Security Services Ltd. No credible evidence established personal assurances or fraudulent conduct justifying piercing the corporate veil. The harassment claim failed as the conduct did not meet the statutory threshold for harassment, and witness immunity applied to complaints made to the police. Any contractual claims were statute-barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds.

Orders

  • Claimant's claims under the Wilson Agreement and for harassment are dismissed.
  • Defendant is entitled to declarations of no liability as pleaded in the counterclaim.