Asertis Ltd v Clarkson & Ors

Asertis Ltd v Clarkson & Ors

The Part 20 claim is not barred by res judicata or abuse of process as the challenge to the validity of the settlement agreement was not previously adjudicated and is not an abuse to raise now. The illegality/clean hands defence and the merits of the conspiracy claim require factual investigation at trial and are not suitable for summary determination. The unlawful means conspiracy claim is sufficiently pleaded to proceed to trial from October 2018 onwards, but the lawful means conspiracy claim is not properly pleaded and is struck out. The Consumer Credit Act claim is struck out for lack of standing. Applications to enforce the Tomlin Order and to strike out/set aside the Part 20 claim...

Parties
Claimant: Asertis Ltd; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Mark Damian Clarkson; Defendant: Pagefield Developments Limited; Defendant: Glenn Thomas; Defendant: John Unsworth; Defendant (claim Compromised and Stayed): Richard Luxmore; Defendant: Colin Howard Boswell; Defendant: MDSC (Liverpool) Limited; Defendant: TAYCO002 Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Future Resources FZE; Part 20 Defendant: Pradeep Singh; Part 20 Defendant: Holy Group Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Sudarshan Sadana; Part 20 Defendant: GMT Global (FZE); Part 20 Defendant: Vijay Pal Gandhi; Part 20 Defendant: Rajinder Kumar; Defendant (manchester Proceedings): Whiteacres Holdings Limited; Defendant (manchester Proceedings): Ten Acres Holdings Limited; Defendant (manchester Proceedings): Andrew David Pickles; Defendant (manchester Proceedings): Certus Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Enforcement, Amendments)
Outcome
Part 20 claim (unlawful means conspiracy) allowed to proceed to trial; strike out/summary judgment applications mostly dismissed; lawful means conspiracy and Consumer Credit Act claims struck out; enforcement of Tomlin Order refused; withdrawal of admissions by other defendants refused; minor amendments to defence...
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Illegality Defence, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Lawful Means Conspiracy, Consumer Credit Act, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Freezing Injunctions, Set Off, Admissions and Amendments
Civil Procedure Equity Commercial Law Banking and Finance Res Judicata Abuse of Process Illegality Defence Unlawful Means Conspiracy +7 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asertis Ltd

Claimant

Mark Damian Clarkson

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Pagefield Developments Limited

Defendant

Glenn Thomas

Defendant

John Unsworth

Defendant

Richard Luxmore

Defendant (claim Compromised and Stayed)

Colin Howard Boswell

Defendant

MDSC (Liverpool) Limited

Defendant

TAYCO002 Limited

Defendant

Future Resources FZE

Part 20 Defendant

Pradeep Singh

Part 20 Defendant

Holy Group Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Sudarshan Sadana

Part 20 Defendant

GMT Global (FZE)

Part 20 Defendant

Vijay Pal Gandhi

Part 20 Defendant

Rajinder Kumar

Part 20 Defendant

Whiteacres Holdings Limited

Defendant (manchester Proceedings)

Ten Acres Holdings Limited

Defendant (manchester Proceedings)

Andrew David Pickles

Defendant (manchester Proceedings)

Certus Holdings Limited

Defendant (manchester Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Enforcement, Amendments)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Clarkson's Part 20 claim is barred by res judicata or abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson)
  2. 2 Whether the Part 20 claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed for illegality or lack of clean hands
  3. 3 Whether the Part 20 claim sufficiently pleads unlawful means conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 20 claim is not barred by res judicata or abuse of process as the challenge to the validity of the settlement agreement was not previously adjudicated and is not an abuse to raise now. The illegality/clean hands defence and the merits of the conspiracy claim require factual investigation at trial and are not suitable for summary determination. The unlawful means conspiracy claim is sufficiently pleaded to proceed to trial from October 2018 onwards, but the lawful means conspiracy claim is not properly pleaded and is struck out. The Consumer Credit Act claim is struck out for lack of standing. Applications to enforce the Tomlin Order and to strike out/set aside the Part 20 claim...

Court Disposition

Part 20 claim (unlawful means conspiracy) allowed to proceed to trial; strike out/summary judgment applications mostly dismissed; lawful means conspiracy and Consumer Credit Act claims struck out; enforcement of Tomlin Order refused; withdrawal of admissions by other defendants refused; minor amendments to defence...

Orders

  • Part 20 claim (unlawful means conspiracy) to proceed to trial from 12 October 2018 onwards
  • Lawful means conspiracy and Consumer Credit Act claims struck out