Raffermati v Capello Hair Designs Ltd & Anor

Raffermati v Capello Hair Designs Ltd & Anor

The defence and counterclaim disclosed no sustainable cause of action to the company's claim, as beneficial ownership of shares does not provide a defence to misappropriation of company assets. However, the third party claim was sufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence to survive strike out or summary judgment, as it set out an express agreement or representations and reliance. The order for payment of £44,041 was not justified without a hearing on quantum, as there was an arguable defence to the amount claimed.

Parties
Appellant: Rosa Raffermati; Respondent: Capello Hair Designs Ltd; Respondent: Paul Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Pleadings, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Beneficial Ownership, Misappropriation, Damages
Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Pleadings Strike Out Summary Judgment Beneficial Ownership +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosa Raffermati

Appellant

Capello Hair Designs Ltd

Respondent

Paul Roberts

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and counterclaim disclosed a sustainable cause of action to the company's claim for misappropriation
  2. 2 Whether the third party claim was sufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence to survive strike out or summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the order for payment of £44,041 was justified without a hearing on quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The defence and counterclaim disclosed no sustainable cause of action to the company's claim, as beneficial ownership of shares does not provide a defence to misappropriation of company assets. However, the third party claim was sufficiently pleaded and supported by evidence to survive strike out or summary judgment, as it set out an express agreement or representations and reliance. The order for payment of £44,041 was not justified without a hearing on quantum, as there was an arguable defence to the amount claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal against strike out of defence and counterclaim dismissed except as regards the claim for damages (paragraph 7 of the Order), which is allowed.
  • Appeal against strike out of the third party claim allowed.