Equant SAS (UK Branch) v Ives & Ors [2002] EWHC 1992 (Ch) (04 October 2002)

Equant SAS (UK Branch) v Ives & Ors [2002] EWHC 1992 (Ch) (04 October 2002)

The evidence filed reveals substantial factual disputes regarding the alleged arrangement, approval of invoices, and Defendants' authority; the Defendants' case is not fanciful and there is a real prospect of defending; summary judgment, strike out, and interim payment are inappropriate; the case must proceed to trial.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1992 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Equant SAS (UK Branch); Defendant: Stephen James Ives; Defendant: Robert Gerald Lee; Defendant: Tristar Data Solutions Limited; Defendant: Magellan Communications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out/interim Payment
Outcome
Application for summary judgment, strike out, and interim payment dismissed; permission granted to Defendants to serve and file Amended Defence.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Disclosure, Interim Payment
Employment Law Company Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Fiduciary Duty Fraud Conspiracy +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equant SAS (UK Branch)

Claimant

Stephen James Ives

Defendant

Robert Gerald Lee

Defendant

Tristar Data Solutions Limited

Defendant

Magellan Communications Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out/interim Payment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment or strike out is appropriate given disputed facts
  3. 3 Whether interim payment should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence filed reveals substantial factual disputes regarding the alleged arrangement, approval of invoices, and Defendants' authority; the Defendants' case is not fanciful and there is a real prospect of defending; summary judgment, strike out, and interim payment are inappropriate; the case must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment, strike out, and interim payment dismissed; permission granted to Defendants to serve and file Amended Defence.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment under Part 24 dismissed.
  • Application to strike out Defence under Part 3.4(2) dismissed.