Secretary of State for Justice v Topland Group Plc & Ors

Secretary of State for Justice v Topland Group Plc & Ors

The pleaded references to market practice in the Defendants’ defences are not to be struck out, as they may be relevant to the factual issues of the Claimant’s knowledge of the introduction fee, the secrecy of the commission, the Defendants’ state of mind, and the assessment of dishonesty and remedy. These are matters for trial and not suitable for summary disposal. Permission is granted to adduce expert evidence on real estate market practice, as such evidence may assist the court in determining the factual context and issues at trial.

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 (commercial/fraud/bribery) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Permission for Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Applications to strike out references to market practice in Defences dismissed; permission to adduce expert evidence on market practice granted.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Conspiracy, Strike Out Applications, Expert Evidence
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Bribery Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Conspiracy Strike Out Applications +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 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 (commercial/fraud/bribery) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Permission for Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleaded references to market practice in Defendants' defences should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending claims of bribery, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonest assistance
  2. 2 Whether Defendants should be permitted to adduce expert evidence on real estate market practice

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded references to market practice in the Defendants’ defences are not to be struck out, as they may be relevant to the factual issues of the Claimant’s knowledge of the introduction fee, the secrecy of the commission, the Defendants’ state of mind, and the assessment of dishonesty and remedy. These are matters for trial and not suitable for summary disposal. Permission is granted to adduce expert evidence on real estate market practice, as such evidence may assist the court in determining the factual context and issues at trial.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out references to market practice in Defences dismissed; permission to adduce expert evidence on market practice granted.

Orders

  • Strike-out applications in both the Smith and Topland actions dismissed.
  • Permission granted to each party to adduce expert evidence on real estate market practice.