American Leisure Group Ltd v Walker & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 445 (10 May 2016)

American Leisure Group Ltd v Walker & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 445 (10 May 2016)

The assignment did not assign away the causes of action asserted by ALG in the present proceedings because the claims depended on facts and matters not set forth as essential ingredients in the Pratt proceedings. ALG retained a realistic prospect of establishing title to sue at trial. The Deputy Judge was correct to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 445
Parties
Respondent: American Leisure Group Limited; Appellant: Rupert Roderick Faure Walker; Appellant: David Champion Mace
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Directors' Duties, Strike Out Applications, Interpretation of Contracts
Company Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Assignment of Claims Directors' Duties Strike Out Applications Interpretation of Contracts

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

American Leisure Group Limited

Respondent

Rupert Roderick Faure Walker

Appellant

David Champion Mace

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment dated 1 June 2013 assigned away all causes of action asserted by ALG against the appellants
  2. 2 Whether ALG had title to sue on the causes of action in question
  3. 3 Whether the claim or parts of it should be struck out for want of title or for procedural non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment did not assign away the causes of action asserted by ALG in the present proceedings because the claims depended on facts and matters not set forth as essential ingredients in the Pratt proceedings. ALG retained a realistic prospect of establishing title to sue at trial. The Deputy Judge was correct to strike out the paragraph 31.8 claims for lack of particularisation and procedural non-compliance, regardless of the assignment issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal by the appellants is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal by ALG is dismissed.