Lapidus -v- Le Blancq and Voisin and Co [2013] JRC 181A (16 September 2013)

Lapidus -v- Le Blancq and Voisin and Co [2013] JRC 181A (16 September 2013)

The plaintiff has an arguable claim in contract against the second defendant which does not require proof of actual loss at this stage. In tort, the plaintiff suffered loss when his interest in the property was transferred to the first defendant, leaving him with only an unsecured covenant. The claim is not so weak as to be struck out, and any issues as to quantum or nominal damages can be addressed at a later stage.

Citation
[2013] JRC 181A
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out and Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
application to strike out dismissed; application to amend granted
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Duty of Care, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Causation of Loss, Quantification of Damages, Pleadings Amendment
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Duty of Care Negligence Breach of Contract Causation of Loss +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out and Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Order of Justice discloses a reasonable cause of action against the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has suffered loss or damage sufficient to found a claim in contract and/or tort against the second defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claim against the second defendant should be struck out under Rule 6/13(1)(a) of the Royal Court Rules 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has an arguable claim in contract against the second defendant which does not require proof of actual loss at this stage. In tort, the plaintiff suffered loss when his interest in the property was transferred to the first defendant, leaving him with only an unsecured covenant. The claim is not so weak as to be struck out, and any issues as to quantum or nominal damages can be addressed at a later stage.

Court Disposition

application to strike out dismissed; application to amend granted

Orders

  • The second defendant's application to strike out the Order of Justice is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's application to amend the Order of Justice is granted.