Birch v Lloyd & Anor

Birch v Lloyd & Anor

Claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy survive only to the extent they relate to alleged breaches of the Building Contract (non-payment of Interim Certificates 34 and 35, prevention of issue of Interim Certificate 36). Claims based on sham contract structure, conspiracy to injure, and procuring breach of sub-contracts are struck out for lack of reasonable grounds or inadequate particularisation. Conversion/trespass claims remain for trial.

Parties
Claimant: Palmer Birch; Defendant: Michael Lloyd; Defendant: Christopher Lloyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment)
Outcome
Application to strike out succeeds in part; specified paragraphs and claims are struck out; remaining claims proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Conversion, Trespass to Goods
Civil Procedure Tort Law Contract Law Procuring Breach of Contract Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations Unlawful Means Conspiracy Piercing the Corporate Veil Conversion +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmer Birch

Claimant

Michael Lloyd

Defendant

Christopher Lloyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy disclose reasonable grounds
  2. 2 Whether the contract structure involving HHL was a sham justifying piercing the corporate veil
  3. 3 Whether allegations of conversion and trespass to goods raise triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

Claims for procuring breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful means conspiracy survive only to the extent they relate to alleged breaches of the Building Contract (non-payment of Interim Certificates 34 and 35, prevention of issue of Interim Certificate 36). Claims based on sham contract structure, conspiracy to injure, and procuring breach of sub-contracts are struck out for lack of reasonable grounds or inadequate particularisation. Conversion/trespass claims remain for trial.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out succeeds in part; specified paragraphs and claims are struck out; remaining claims proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 58 and 70 of Particulars of Claim struck out (procuring breach of sub-contracts)
  • Reference to paragraph 58 in paragraph 65 struck out