Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors v Waypharm LP & Ors [2013] EWHC 503 (Comm) (14 March 2013)

Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors v Waypharm LP & Ors [2013] EWHC 503 (Comm) (14 March 2013)

Second Defendant's claims against Claimants and Receiver are totally without merit, lack evidential support, and fail for want of standing; permission to sue Receiver is refused as claim is not genuine and has no real prospect of success; claims are struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4 and inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 503 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Barclay Pharmaceuticals Limited; Claimant: AAH Pharmaceuticals Limited; Claimant: AAH Limited; Defendant: Waypharm LP; Defendant: Antoine Mekni; Defendant: David Condliffe; Defendant: Best Financial Services Corporation; Defendant: Kenneth Marketing; Defendant: Waypharm SAS; Court Appointed Receiver: Geoffrey Carton-Kelly (Receiver)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment Applications; Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Claims against Claimants and Receiver dismissed; strike out granted.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Liquidation, Reflective Loss, Strike Out Applications, Court Appointed Receiver, Shareholder Claims
Commercial Law Insolvency Equity Receivership Liquidation Reflective Loss Strike Out Applications Court Appointed Receiver +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclay Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

AAH Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

AAH Limited

Claimant

Waypharm LP

Defendant

Antoine Mekni

Defendant

David Condliffe

Defendant

Best Financial Services Corporation

Defendant

Kenneth Marketing

Defendant

Waypharm SAS

Defendant

Geoffrey Carton-Kelly (Receiver)

Court Appointed Receiver

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment Applications; Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Second Defendant's claims against Claimants and Receiver disclose reasonable grounds
  2. 2 Whether Second Defendant has standing to claim for losses allegedly suffered by companies
  3. 3 Whether permission is required and should be granted to sue a court-appointed receiver

Ratio Decidendi

Second Defendant's claims against Claimants and Receiver are totally without merit, lack evidential support, and fail for want of standing; permission to sue Receiver is refused as claim is not genuine and has no real prospect of success; claims are struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4 and inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Claims against Claimants and Receiver dismissed; strike out granted.

Orders

  • Second Defendant's claims against Claimants and Receiver struck out.
  • Second Defendant to pay costs of and incidental to applications on standard basis.