Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architects Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3948 (TCC) (17 December 2013)

Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architects Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3948 (TCC) (17 December 2013)

Save for the claim against Mr. Anderson, the applications to strike out the Particulars of Claim fail as the claims against the other Defendants are not fanciful and require full investigation at trial. The limitation issue cannot be determined without evidence as to diminution in value at the time of contract. The claim against Mr. Anderson is struck out as there is no reasonably arguable case against him. The Claimant is permitted to amend the name of the Sixth Defendant. The continuation of the claim is made subject to strict conditions due to the Claimant's unsatisfactory conduct and lack of candour.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3948 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Venulum Property Investments Ltd; Defendant: Space Architects Ltd; Defendant: MRP Development Services Ltd; Defendant: Mark Kevin Willmott; Defendant: Richard Stewart Anderson; Defendant: Robin John Ungemuth; Defendant: Abbeyross Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim / Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application to strike out refused except as against Mr. Anderson; amendment to Sixth Defendant's name allowed; continuation of claim subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Limitation of Actions, Duty of Care, Fiduciary Duty, Personal Liability of Directors, Assignment of Rights, Planning Permission, Contractual Obligations
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Property Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Limitation of Actions Duty of Care Fiduciary Duty +4 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venulum Property Investments Ltd

Claimant

Space Architects Ltd

Defendant

MRP Development Services Ltd

Defendant

Mark Kevin Willmott

Defendant

Richard Stewart Anderson

Defendant

Robin John Ungemuth

Defendant

Abbeyross Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim / Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or has a realistic prospect of success against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claims are statute-barred under the Limitation Acts
  3. 3 Whether any duty of care or fiduciary duty was owed by the Defendants to the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Save for the claim against Mr. Anderson, the applications to strike out the Particulars of Claim fail as the claims against the other Defendants are not fanciful and require full investigation at trial. The limitation issue cannot be determined without evidence as to diminution in value at the time of contract. The claim against Mr. Anderson is struck out as there is no reasonably arguable case against him. The Claimant is permitted to amend the name of the Sixth Defendant. The continuation of the claim is made subject to strict conditions due to the Claimant's unsatisfactory conduct and lack of candour.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused except as against Mr. Anderson; amendment to Sixth Defendant's name allowed; continuation of claim subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Claim against Mr. Anderson struck out.
  • Claimant permitted to amend the name of the Sixth Defendant to Abbeyross (GB) Ltd.