Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors

Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho & Ors

The Claimants had no intention of complying with the consent order to provide investor information and failed to justify their non-compliance. There was no basis to extend time for compliance. An unless order was appropriate and proportionate, limited to striking out only those parts of the claim relating to the outstanding requests if not complied with by the deadline.

Parties
Claimant: PHAESTOS LIMITED; Claimant: MINDIMAXNOX LLP; Claimant: IKOS CIF LIMITED; Defendant: PETER HO; Defendant: TOBIN MAXWELL GOVER
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Unless Order and Extension of Time
Outcome
Claimants' application for extension of time dismissed; Defendants' application for unless order granted in part.
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Disclosure Obligations, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Unless Orders Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Disclosure Obligations Breach of Contract

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHAESTOS LIMITED

Claimant

MINDIMAXNOX LLP

Claimant

IKOS CIF LIMITED

Claimant

PETER HO

Defendant

TOBIN MAXWELL GOVER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Application for Unless Order and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for compliance with a consent order for further information
  2. 2 Whether an unless order should be made striking out parts of the claim for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants had no intention of complying with the consent order to provide investor information and failed to justify their non-compliance. There was no basis to extend time for compliance. An unless order was appropriate and proportionate, limited to striking out only those parts of the claim relating to the outstanding requests if not complied with by the deadline.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application for extension of time dismissed; Defendants' application for unless order granted in part.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide Further Information under Paragraphs 76.c and 154 to 156 of the RFI by 4pm on 28 May 2012, failing which specified parts of the Amended Consolidated Particulars of Claim and Further Information to be struck out.
  • Claimants to pay £28,000 in costs to the Defendants within 14 days of 18 May 2012.