Achom & Ors v Lalic & Ors [2014] EWHC 1888 (Ch) (10 June 2014)

Achom & Ors v Lalic & Ors [2014] EWHC 1888 (Ch) (10 June 2014)

No binding contract or partnership existed between the parties as essential terms were not agreed and the parties intended to document any arrangement in writing. The claimants did not act to their detriment in reliance on any assurance sufficient to found a Pallant v Morgan equity or proprietary estoppel. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1888 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Frederic Uchechukwu Achom; Claimant: Alexander Charles Nicholl; Claimant: Boington Anthony Grant; Defendant: Tihomir Lalic; Defendant: Vahram Papazyan; Defendant: Alula Leisure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Proprietary Estoppel, Pallant V Morgan Equity, Partnership, Procuring Breach of Contract, Restitution, Economic Torts
Equity Contract Law Company Law Partnership Law Contract Formation Proprietary Estoppel Pallant V Morgan Equity Partnership +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederic Uchechukwu Achom

Claimant

Alexander Charles Nicholl

Claimant

Boington Anthony Grant

Claimant

Tihomir Lalic

Defendant

Vahram Papazyan

Defendant

Alula Leisure Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between the parties for shareholding in Great Club Limited and the Scotch venture
  2. 2 Whether a partnership existed between the parties
  3. 3 Whether a Pallant v Morgan equity or proprietary estoppel arose in favour of the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract or partnership existed between the parties as essential terms were not agreed and the parties intended to document any arrangement in writing. The claimants did not act to their detriment in reliance on any assurance sufficient to found a Pallant v Morgan equity or proprietary estoppel. The claims for breach of contract, partnership, proprietary estoppel, Pallant v Morgan equity, and economic torts all fail.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in full
  • No determination of quantum at this stage; if necessary, subject to inquiry