Neil Leslie Humphrey & Anor v Paul Craig Bennett & Ors

Neil Leslie Humphrey & Anor v Paul Craig Bennett & Ors

Claims in knowing receipt against EHCL should not be struck out as the effect of s.29 LRA 2002 is unsettled and factual issues remain; permission is granted to amend pleadings to add claims in unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, unlawful means conspiracy, and relief under ss.190 and 195 CA 2006, as these are adequately pleaded and have real prospects of success.

Parties
Claimant: Neil Leslie Humphrey; Claimant: Fiona Mary Humphrey; Defendant: Paul Craig Bennett; Defendant: The Estate of Alison Murphy (Deceased); Defendant: Esprit Land Limited; Defendant: Esprit Homes Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out
Outcome
Applications to amend pleadings allowed; strike out application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance, Unjust Enrichment, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Substantial Property Transactions, Members' Approval, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Knowing Receipt Dishonest Assistance Unjust Enrichment Unlawful Means Conspiracy +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Leslie Humphrey

Claimant

Fiona Mary Humphrey

Claimant

Paul Craig Bennett

Defendant

The Estate of Alison Murphy (Deceased)

Defendant

Esprit Land Limited

Defendant

Esprit Homes Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Ruling on Applications to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against EHCL in knowing receipt should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to amend pleadings to add claims in unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, unlawful means conspiracy, and relief under ss.190 and 195 Companies Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

Claims in knowing receipt against EHCL should not be struck out as the effect of s.29 LRA 2002 is unsettled and factual issues remain; permission is granted to amend pleadings to add claims in unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, unlawful means conspiracy, and relief under ss.190 and 195 CA 2006, as these are adequately pleaded and have real prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend pleadings allowed; strike out application dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission granted to Claimants to amend Re-Amended Particulars of Claim as pleaded in draft Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim.
  • Permission under s.263 CA 2006 to continue amended claims as derivative claims on behalf of the Company.