Mannering v Cook [2020] EWHC 1998 (Ch) (10 July 2020)

Mannering v Cook [2020] EWHC 1998 (Ch) (10 July 2020)

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim were incoherent, failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, sought to reopen matters already determined (res judicata), and any potential claims belonged to the company, not the Claimant. The Claimant's litigation conduct justified the imposition of an extended civil restraint order.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1998 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Leeanne Mannering; Defendant: Nicholas Gary Cook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery Division / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Claim struck out; extended civil restraint order granted against Claimant
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Derivative Claims, Res Judicata, Shareholder Claims, Beneficial Ownership, Maintenance Provision
Civil Procedure Company Law Family Law Strike Out Applications Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Derivative Claims Res Judicata +3 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeanne Mannering

Claimant

Nicholas Gary Cook

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery Division / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claim seeks to reopen matters already determined (res judicata)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because the particulars of claim were incoherent, failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, sought to reopen matters already determined (res judicata), and any potential claims belonged to the company, not the Claimant. The Claimant's litigation conduct justified the imposition of an extended civil restraint order.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; extended civil restraint order granted against Claimant

Orders

  • The Chancery Claim is struck out as totally without merit.
  • An extended civil restraint order (ECRO) is made against the Claimant, excluding family proceedings and applications to set aside the LCRO.