ED&F Man Sugar Ltd v T&L Sugars Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 272 (Comm) (10 February 2016)

ED&F Man Sugar Ltd v T&L Sugars Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 272 (Comm) (10 February 2016)

The conversion claim was not struck out because there is no legal bar to the claimant advancing inconsistent cases in arbitration and court proceedings against different parties, and no principle of election or issue estoppel applies. The conspiracy claim survives except as regards allegations of deception, which were inadequately pleaded. The claim for inducing breach of contract is struck out as there was no breach of contract by SRB in entering into the sub-sale agreement. Claims against the individual defendants are struck out except insofar as they relate to the bringing of the Italian proceedings, which were sufficiently particularised.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 272 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ED&F Man Sugar Ltd.; Defendant: T&L Sugars Ltd.; Defendant: Mr Ian Bacon; Defendant: Mr Jahn Widmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (strike Out/summary Judgment) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Inducing Breach of Contract, Retention of Title, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Conversion Unlawful Means Conspiracy Inducing Breach of Contract Retention of Title Summary Judgment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ED&F Man Sugar Ltd.

Claimant

T&L Sugars Ltd.

Defendant

Mr Ian Bacon

Defendant

Mr Jahn Widmer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (strike Out/summary Judgment) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conversion claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed due to inconsistent positions in arbitration and court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the conspiracy claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the claim for inducing breach of contract is maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The conversion claim was not struck out because there is no legal bar to the claimant advancing inconsistent cases in arbitration and court proceedings against different parties, and no principle of election or issue estoppel applies. The conspiracy claim survives except as regards allegations of deception, which were inadequately pleaded. The claim for inducing breach of contract is struck out as there was no breach of contract by SRB in entering into the sub-sale agreement. Claims against the individual defendants are struck out except insofar as they relate to the bringing of the Italian proceedings, which were sufficiently particularised.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Conversion claim not struck out or summarily dismissed.
  • Conspiracy claim survives except as regards allegations of deception, which are struck out.