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 pleaded references to market practice were not being used as a standalone legal defence to bribery or to defeat the claim per se, but as part of the factual matrix relevant to the issues of the Claimant's knowledge, consent, and the Defendants' state of mind. These are live issues to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 983 (QB)
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 (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out Applications and Directions)
Outcome
Applications to strike out parts of the Defendants' defences dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Secret Commission, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Bribery Secret Commission Fiduciary Duty Fraud Conspiracy +4 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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out Applications and Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Defendants' defences 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 relevant to the issues of secrecy, knowledge, and dishonesty in the context of alleged bribes/secret commissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pleaded references to market practice were not being used as a standalone legal defence to bribery or to defeat the claim per se, but as part of the factual matrix relevant to the issues of the Claimant's knowledge, consent, and the Defendants' state of mind. These are live issues to be determined at trial, and it cannot be said that the pleadings disclose no reasonable ground for defending the claim. Accordingly, the applications to strike out the relevant parts of the defences were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out parts of the Defendants' defences dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike-out applications in both the Smith and Topland actions are dismissed.
  • Relevant directions for disclosure, inspection, and expert evidence to be incorporated into the final order.