Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.

Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.

Permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the defendants failed to provide adequate evidence of impecuniosity before the judge, and the evidence sought to be admitted could and should have been available at the hearing. The judge was correct to enforce the unless order striking out the defence for non-payment of costs, and there was no inconsistency between the earlier Court of Appeal decision on clause 21.2 and the default judgment on liability for economic torts.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Credico Marketing Limited; Claimant/respondent: Perdm Trading Limited; Defendant/appellant: Benjamin Gregory Lambert; Defendant/appellant: S5 Marketing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Impecuniosity, Conspiracy by Unlawful Means, Unlawful Interference With Business, Restrictive Covenants
Civil Procedure Economic Torts Unless Orders Relief From Sanctions Impecuniosity Conspiracy by Unlawful Means Unlawful Interference With Business Restrictive Covenants

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Credico Marketing Limited

Claimant/respondent

Perdm Trading Limited

Claimant/respondent

Benjamin Gregory Lambert

Defendant/appellant

S5 Marketing Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether permission to appeal should be granted against an unless order striking out the defence for non-payment of costs
  2. 2 whether fresh evidence of impecuniosity should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 effect of unenforceability of post-termination restrictive covenants on liability for economic torts

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the defendants failed to provide adequate evidence of impecuniosity before the judge, and the evidence sought to be admitted could and should have been available at the hearing. The judge was correct to enforce the unless order striking out the defence for non-payment of costs, and there was no inconsistency between the earlier Court of Appeal decision on clause 21.2 and the default judgment on liability for economic torts.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • permission to appeal refused