Summary
Summary judgment or strike out is inappropriate where the claim raises substantial factual disputes, credibility issues, developing legal questions, or matters requiring fuller evidence at trial. The court may decide a short point of law or construction summarily where the evidence is sufficient, but must avoid conducting a mini-trial.
Fiduciary obligations after compulsory liquidation are fact-sensitive. A former director may arguably remain subject to duties concerning company property, information or opportunities where the person continues to exercise an unusual stewardship or assumes responsibility for the relevant asset. Alleged dishonest assistance and conspiracy may likewise proceed where contemporaneous documents provide a non-speculative basis for the pleaded inference.
Factual background
The liquidators of Akkurate Limited brought claims against its former director, John Richmond, and Mark Schofield. The claims concerned the alleged concealed acquisition and exploitation of the Company’s trademarks and stock, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations inducing a 2019 settlement of earlier proceedings.
Both defendants applied for reverse summary judgment and/or strike out. The applications raised whether parts of the claims had been compromised by the 2019 Settlement, whether Mr Richmond could owe fiduciary duties after the Company entered compulsory liquidation, and whether the claims disclosed a real prospect of success.
Held
- Disposition. The applications for reverse summary judgment and strike out were dismissed. No part of the claim was struck out. The issues were suitable for determination at trial.
- Summary judgment principles. The court applied the principles in Easyair Ltd (Trading As Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd and the caution in Partco v Wragg. The court must assess whether the claim is realistic rather than fanciful, but must avoid a mini-trial. Summary disposal may be appropriate for a short point of law or construction where the necessary evidence is available. It is inappropriate where fuller investigation, disclosure and cross-examination may affect the outcome.
- 2019 Settlement. There was at least a real prospect that “all claims in the Proceedings” referred to the claims pleaded after an order requiring statements of case, rather than every matter mentioned in an earlier witness statement. The pleaded claims did not clearly include post-liquidation conduct concerning the trademarks. Clause 5.2, which referred to conduct before liquidation, provided further support for that construction. The settlement issue was also closely connected with other claims and with possible abuse of process or res judicata issues reserved for trial.
- Fiduciary duties. Although Measures Brothers Ltd v Measures supported the proposition that a directorship ends on compulsory liquidation, it did not necessarily determine whether fiduciary obligations concerning particular company assets could continue. The statutory duties in Companies Act 2006, including sections 170, 175, 176 and 177, and the fact-specific authorities on fiduciary relationships left an arguable case that Mr Richmond owed duties of no conflict, no self-dealing and disclosure concerning the trademarks.
- Factual claims. Numerous contemporaneous communications supported a non-speculative case that Mr Richmond and Mr Schofield had worked together to acquire the trademarks and conceal Mr Richmond’s interest. The trademark, stock, dishonest assistance and conspiracy claims involved closely related facts and credibility issues which could not fairly be resolved summarily.
- Misrepresentation. The alleged representations about Mr Richmond’s assets, interests and resources were adequately pleaded. Whether they were false, fraudulent and relied upon required disclosure and cross-examination. Suspicion did not necessarily negative reliance, and the evidential presumptions applicable to fraudulent misrepresentation were difficult to rebut at an interlocutory stage.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Key cases cited
The 30 most senior of 36 authorities cited.
- Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24
- Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc [2016] UKSC 48
- Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line CV (The Tasman Discoverer) [2004] UKPC 22
- HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others (Respondents) v. Chase Manhattan Bank (Appellants) and others HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v. Chase Manhattan Bank (Respondents) and others (First Appeal) HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v. Chase Manhattan Bank (Respondents) and others (Second Appeal) (Conjoined appeals) [2003] UKHL 6
- Twinsectra Limited v Yardley and Others [2002] UKHL 12
- Pearson (S) & Son Ltd v Dublin Corpn [1907] AC 351
- Simetra Global Assets Ltd & Anor v Ikon Finance Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1413
- BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. [2019] EWCA Civ 596
- Leslie v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 79
- Smithton Ltd v Naggar [2014] EWCA Civ 939
- Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5
- Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 200
- Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63
- Loveridge & Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173
- In Plus Group Ltd & Ors v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 370
- Attorney-General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd, Third Party) (Jonathan Cape Ltd (Third Party)) [1998] Ch 439
- Greig William Alexander Mitchell & Anor v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber & Ors [2023] EWHC 364 (Ch)
- HOTEL PORTFOLIO II UK LIMITED v ANDREW JOSEPH RUHAN [2022] EWHC 383 (Comm)
- Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 1457 (Ch)
- King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
- Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers (Pts) Ltd [2018] 1 CLC 94
- Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone & Ors [2014] EWHC 387 (Ch)
- Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven & Ors [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm)
- Vivendi SA Centenary Holdings Iii Ltd v Richards & Ors [2013] EWHC 3006 (Ch)
- F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy & Anor [2011] EWHC 1731 (Ch)
- Foodco UK Llp (t/a Muffin Break) & Ors v Henry Boot Developments Ltd [2010] EWHC 358 (Ch)
- Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
- British Credit Trust Holdings v UK Insurance Ltd. [2003] EWHC 2404 (Comm)
- Thermascan Ltd v Norman [2011] BCC 535
- Partco v Wragg [2002] 2 BCLC 323
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority and the other 6. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
1 later case · 1 positive
Most senior citing decisions:
- Laurence Pagden & Ors v Mark Robert Fry & Anor [2025] EWHC 1918 (Ch) applied
Sign in for the full treatment table. A free account is enough.