Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 150 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2016] EWHC 2615 (Comm)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Judge:

Leggatt J

Representation Neil Kitchener QC, Jane McCafferty and Gideon Cohen (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the claimants.
  Pushpinder Saini QC and Paul Luckhurst (instructed by Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe (Europe) LLP) for the first defendant.
  Stuart Ritchie QC, Victoria Windle and Can Yeginsu (instructed by Withers LLP) for the third defendant.
  Martin Griffiths QC and Rebecca Akushie (instructed by Withers LLP) for B and GIM.
Judgment Dates: 21 October 2016

Catchwords

Practice - Summary judgment - Offer to settle - CPR Pt 36 offer - Claimants carrying on investment management business - Claimants alleging first to fourth defendant former employees and other defendants being parties to conspiracy or common design to do acts calculated to injure claimants by setting up competing business in breach of contractual obligations - Sixth defendant counterclaiming for sums allegedly due under consulting agreement - Settlement of part of main claim - Sixth defendant alleging effect of settlement being that claimants having no real prospect of successfully defending counterclaim - Sixth defendant applying for summary judgment - Whether settlement of account resulting in claimants having no real prospect of succeffully defending counterclaim - Whether application should be allowed - CPR Pt 36.

The Case

Practice Summary judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the sixth defendant's application for summary judgment on its counterclaim for sums allegedly due from the claimants under a consultancy agreement. The sixth defendant had alleged that the claimants' acceptance of a CPR Pt36 offer of settlement in respect of the claimants' common design claim, alleging that the defendant former employees had set up a competing business, meant that the claimants had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the counterclaim. The court held that on the true construction of offer letter, the defence put forward to the counterclaim had not been affected by the settlement of the common design claim.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.