Elevar Finance SPV Photon LLC v Sabesan Somasundaram

Elevar Finance SPV Photon LLC v Sabesan Somasundaram

The Amended Defence does not adequately comply with CPR 16.5(2) as it fails to set out the Defendant’s reasons for denying the allegations, but striking out is a last resort. There are reasonable grounds for believing that a fuller investigation of the facts may alter the evidence before the trial judge, especially given the seriousness of the fraud allegations and the disputed facts. The Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the tortious claims, and the case should proceed to trial. The proportionate order is to direct the Defendant to file and serve a Re-Amended Defence within 28 days, failing which the Defence will stand struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Elevar Finance SPV Photon LLC; Defendant: Mr Sabesan Somasundaram
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fraud) / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence And/or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and to strike out defence refused; conditional order made.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Procuring Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Procuring Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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

Parties

Elevar Finance SPV Photon LLC

Claimant

Mr Sabesan Somasundaram

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/fraud) / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence And/or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Amended Defence discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be entered against the Defendant under CPR 24.2
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is personally liable for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, procuring breach of contract, and unlawful means conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Defence does not adequately comply with CPR 16.5(2) as it fails to set out the Defendant’s reasons for denying the allegations, but striking out is a last resort. There are reasonable grounds for believing that a fuller investigation of the facts may alter the evidence before the trial judge, especially given the seriousness of the fraud allegations and the disputed facts. The Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the tortious claims, and the case should proceed to trial. The proportionate order is to direct the Defendant to file and serve a Re-Amended Defence within 28 days, failing which the Defence will stand struck out.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and to strike out defence refused; conditional order made.

Orders

  • Defendant to file and serve a Re-Amended Defence within 28 days complying with CPR 16.5(2), failing which the Defence will stand struck out.
  • Further directions and consequential matters to be addressed.