Rath v Richmond (CC 14/2016) [2017] SCSC 863 (24 May 2017)

Rath v Richmond (CC 14/2016) [2017] SCSC 863 (24 May 2017)

The plaint does not set out sufficient material facts to constitute a reasonable cause of action for faute or any other cause. No particulars of the alleged mismanagement are provided. The plaint is therefore struck out.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 863
Parties
Plaintiff: Philip Rath; Defendant: Robin Richmond
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
CC 14/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
plaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Plea in Limine Litis, Reasonable Cause of Action, Faute, Mismanagement, Partnership
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Plea in Limine Litis Reasonable Cause of Action Faute Mismanagement Partnership

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Rath

Plaintiff

Robin Richmond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the action is time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The plaint does not set out sufficient material facts to constitute a reasonable cause of action for faute or any other cause. No particulars of the alleged mismanagement are provided. The plaint is therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

plaint dismissed

Orders

  • Plaint dismissed with costs.