Leeds v Admatch [2011] JRC 016A (19 January 2011)

Leeds v Admatch [2011] JRC 016A (19 January 2011)

The defendant's conduct, including failure to pay taxed costs and comply with court orders, does not yet justify striking out the defence without a final opportunity to comply. However, unless the defendant pays the outstanding costs and files the required documents by the specified date, its defence will be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiffs. The real interest in defending lies with Mr Weston and his companies, who are able to fund the defendant; thus, no question of stifling a genuine defence arises.

Citation
[2011] JRC 016A
Parties
First Plaintiff: Leeds United Football Club Limited (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Leeds United Football Club 2007 Limited; Defendant: Admatch Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence
Outcome
Conditional unless order; defence not struck out at this stage.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Costs Orders, Unless Orders, Discovery, Set Off, Assignment of Claims
Civil Procedure Company Law Striking Out Pleadings Abuse of Process Costs Orders Unless Orders Discovery Set Off +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds United Football Club Limited (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Leeds United Football Club 2007 Limited

Second Plaintiff

Admatch Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to an abuse of process justifying striking out its defence
  2. 2 Whether failure to pay taxed costs and comply with court orders warrants striking out the defence
  3. 3 Whether impecuniosity of the defendant is a bar to defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct, including failure to pay taxed costs and comply with court orders, does not yet justify striking out the defence without a final opportunity to comply. However, unless the defendant pays the outstanding costs and files the required documents by the specified date, its defence will be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiffs. The real interest in defending lies with Mr Weston and his companies, who are able to fund the defendant; thus, no question of stifling a genuine defence arises.

Court Disposition

Conditional unless order; defence not struck out at this stage.

Orders

  • Unless the defendant pays the outstanding costs of £63,529.79 and files the re-amended answer and revised affidavit of discovery by 23rd February 2011, its defence will be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
  • No further adjournments will be granted on grounds of Mr Weston's ill health; the company must ensure adequate representation.