ED&F Man Sugar Ltd v T&L Sugars Ltd & Ors

ED&F Man Sugar Ltd v T&L Sugars Ltd & Ors

The conversion claim was not struck out or summarily dismissed because there is no legal principle preventing the claimant from advancing inconsistent cases in different proceedings, and the defendants failed to identify a knock-out defence. The conspiracy claim was not struck out in its entirety as there remained a slender but arguable basis, particularly regarding the Italian proceedings. The claim for inducing breach of contract was struck out as no breach of contract was identified. The claims against the individual defendants were struck out except insofar as they related to the bringing of the Italian proceedings, as the allegations of deception were inadequately particularised.

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 Claim (application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Conversion, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Inducing Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Contract Law Tort Law Conversion Unlawful Means Conspiracy Inducing Breach of Contract Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 4 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 Claim (application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

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 should be struck out for lack of reasonable basis or particularity
  3. 3 Whether the claim for inducing breach of contract is maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

The conversion claim was not struck out or summarily dismissed because there is no legal principle preventing the claimant from advancing inconsistent cases in different proceedings, and the defendants failed to identify a knock-out defence. The conspiracy claim was not struck out in its entirety as there remained a slender but arguable basis, particularly regarding the Italian proceedings. The claim for inducing breach of contract was struck out as no breach of contract was identified. The claims against the individual defendants were struck out except insofar as they related to the bringing of the Italian proceedings, as the allegations of deception were inadequately particularised.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Claim for inducing breach of contract struck out
  • Claims against Mr Bacon and Mr Widmer struck out except as they relate to the bringing of the Italian proceedings