Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors

Clarkson v Future Resources FZE & Ors

The claimant, having entered into a settlement agreement with the benefit of legal advice, released all claims arising out of or connected with the original claim and agreed not to sue the lenders. As such, he is precluded from challenging the settlement agreement as containing unlawful penalties and is contractually obliged to remove the unilateral notice from the Land Registry. The lenders are entitled to enforce the Tomlin order and the claimant's application for an adjournment is refused.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Damian Clarkson; Defendant/applicant: Future Resources FZE; Defendant/applicant: Pradeep Singh; Defendant/applicant: Holy Group Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Sudarshan Sadana; Defendant: Whitecares Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Ten Acres Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Andrew Pickles; Defendant: Certus Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property) / Application to Lift Stay and Enforce Tomlin Order
Outcome
Application granted for lenders; adjournment refused; costs awarded to lenders on standard basis.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Tomlin Orders, Penalty Clauses, Release and Indemnity, Costs Assessment
Contract Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Tomlin Orders Penalty Clauses Release and Indemnity Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Mark Damian Clarkson

Claimant/respondent

Future Resources FZE

Defendant/applicant

Pradeep Singh

Defendant/applicant

Holy Group Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Sudarshan Sadana

Defendant/applicant

Whitecares Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Ten Acres Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Andrew Pickles

Defendant

Certus Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property) / Application to Lift Stay and Enforce Tomlin Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an adjournment to challenge the settlement agreement as containing unlawful penalty clauses
  2. 2 Whether the lenders are entitled to enforce the Tomlin order and require removal of a unilateral notice from the Land Registry
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has standing to challenge the settlement agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, having entered into a settlement agreement with the benefit of legal advice, released all claims arising out of or connected with the original claim and agreed not to sue the lenders. As such, he is precluded from challenging the settlement agreement as containing unlawful penalties and is contractually obliged to remove the unilateral notice from the Land Registry. The lenders are entitled to enforce the Tomlin order and the claimant's application for an adjournment is refused.

Court Disposition

Application granted for lenders; adjournment refused; costs awarded to lenders on standard basis.

Orders

  • Stay in Tomlin order lifted.
  • Claimant to sign and return application to remove unilateral notice from Land Registry title to the property.