American Leisure Group Ltd v Walker & Anor

American Leisure Group Ltd v Walker & Anor

The assignment dated 1 June 2013 did not assign away the causes of action asserted by ALG in the present proceedings, as the mere reference to the IPO in the Pratt proceedings did not mean that all claims relating to the IPO were assigned. The claims in the present proceedings depended on additional facts not set forth in the Pratt pleadings. ALG therefore retained title to sue. The Deputy Judge's order striking out paragraph 31.8 was correct, both on assignment and for failure to provide particulars.

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 High Court Order on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Causes of Action, Directors' Duties, Strike Out Applications, Contribution Claims, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Company Law Civil Procedure Assignment of Causes of Action Directors' Duties Strike Out Applications Contribution Claims Interpretation of Contracts

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 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 High Court Order on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment dated 1 June 2013 assigned away all causes of action relied upon by ALG in the present proceedings
  2. 2 Whether ALG had title to sue on the causes of action asserted
  3. 3 Whether the claim in paragraph 31.8 should be struck out against Mr Faure Walker

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment dated 1 June 2013 did not assign away the causes of action asserted by ALG in the present proceedings, as the mere reference to the IPO in the Pratt proceedings did not mean that all claims relating to the IPO were assigned. The claims in the present proceedings depended on additional facts not set forth in the Pratt pleadings. ALG therefore retained title to sue. The Deputy Judge's order striking out paragraph 31.8 was correct, both on assignment and for failure to provide particulars.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the Appellants is dismissed; ALG's claim is not struck out.
  • The cross-appeal by ALG is dismissed; paragraph 31.8 remains struck out.