Secretary of State for Justice v Topland Group Plc & Ors [2011] EWHC 983 (QB) (18 April 2011)

Secretary of State for Justice v Topland Group Plc & Ors [2011] EWHC 983 (QB) (18 April 2011)

The court held that the Defendants' references to market practice regarding introduction fees are not pleaded as a standalone defence to bribery or as a means to defeat the legal consequences of a secret commission. Rather, they are relevant to factual issues of the Claimant's knowledge and consent, and the Defendants' state of mind regarding dishonesty. These are live issues to be determined at trial and cannot be struck out at this interlocutory stage. The pleaded averments may be relevant to whether the commission was secret and whether the Defendants acted bona fide. Accordingly, the applications to strike out the relevant parts of the Defence in both the Smith and Topland actions are...

Citation
[2011] EWHC 983
Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Justice; Defendant: Topland Group PLC; Defendant: Topland Col Limited; Defendant: Clive Edward Bush; Defendant: Eddie Zakay; Defendant: LSM Professional Limited trading as LSM Partners; Defendant: Andrew Graeme Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out of Parts of Defence)
Outcome
Applications to strike out parts of the Defence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Secret Commission, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Rescission, Money Had and Received
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Contract Law Tort Law Bribery Secret Commission Fiduciary Duty Fraud +6 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Justice

Claimant

Topland Group PLC

Defendant

Topland Col Limited

Defendant

Clive Edward Bush

Defendant

Eddie Zakay

Defendant

LSM Professional Limited trading as LSM Partners

Defendant

Andrew Graeme Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out of Parts of Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Defendants' Defence relying on alleged market practice regarding introduction fees should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending claims of bribery and related causes of action.
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded market practice can be used to defeat claims based on secret commission/bribery or to establish knowledge/consent by the Claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Defendants' references to market practice regarding introduction fees are not pleaded as a standalone defence to bribery or as a means to defeat the legal consequences of a secret commission. Rather, they are relevant to factual issues of the Claimant's knowledge and consent, and the Defendants' state of mind regarding dishonesty. These are live issues to be determined at trial and cannot be struck out at this interlocutory stage. The pleaded averments may be relevant to whether the commission was secret and whether the Defendants acted bona fide. Accordingly, the applications to strike out the relevant parts of the Defence in both the Smith and Topland actions are...

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out parts of the Defence dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike-out applications in both the Smith and Topland actions are dismissed.