Serious Fraud Office & Anor v LCL & Ors (Ruling)

Serious Fraud Office & Anor v LCL & Ors (Ruling)

The inclusion of IUA Claims in the Directed Trial is justified due to substantial factual overlap, efficiency, and the interests of finality, with upstream tracing issues for HPII and Mr Pelz carved out.

Parties
Claimant: Serious Fraud Office; Defendant: LCL; Defendant: HPII; Defendant: Phoenix; Defendant: Minardi; Defendant: Mr Ulrich Pelz; Defendant: Ms Sinead Irving; Defendant: Mr Sodzawiczny; Defendant: Litigation Capital Ltd; Defendant: Dr Gerald Martin Smith; Applicant: Second Applicants; Respondent: Spring Law; Respondent: Harcus Parker LLP; Respondent: Richard Slade and Company; Respondent: HFW; Defendant: Charles Russell Speechlys Bircham LLP; Respondent: Stewarts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court / Ruling on Inclusion of IUA Claims in Directed Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Case Management, Proprietary Claims, Tracing, Trial Phasing
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Case Management Proprietary Claims Tracing Trial Phasing

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serious Fraud Office

Claimant

LCL

Defendant

HPII

Defendant

Phoenix

Defendant

Minardi

Defendant

Mr Ulrich Pelz

Defendant

Ms Sinead Irving

Defendant

Mr Sodzawiczny

Defendant

Litigation Capital Ltd

Defendant

Dr Gerald Martin Smith

Defendant

Second Applicants

Applicant

Spring Law

Respondent

Harcus Parker LLP

Respondent

Richard Slade and Company

Respondent

HFW

Respondent

Charles Russell Speechlys Bircham LLP

Defendant

Stewarts

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court / Ruling on Inclusion of IUA Claims in Directed Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should individual underlying asset claims (IUA Claims) be included in the Directed Trial?
  2. 2 Should upstream tracing issues for HPII and Mr Pelz be carved out?
  3. 3 Should Mr Pelz be granted an extension of time to claim Antoinette Gardens?

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of IUA Claims in the Directed Trial is justified due to substantial factual overlap, efficiency, and the interests of finality, with upstream tracing issues for HPII and Mr Pelz carved out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • IUA Claims to be included in Directed Trial, except upstream tracing issues for HPII and Mr Pelz.
  • Mr Pelz may apply for extension of time to claim Antoinette Gardens.