Key Facts
- •Momenta Holdings (PPI) Ltd (Momenta) and Cheval Legal Ltd (Cheval) had a business relationship involving Plevin claims.
- •Their relationship broke down, leading to Momenta issuing a claim against Cheval.
- •Momenta applied for an interim injunction, and Cheval applied to strike out Momenta's claim.
- •The dispute centers around the existence of an oral joint venture agreement (JVA) and the interpretation of subsequent outsourcing agreements (OA1 and OA2).
- •Cheval argues OA2 supersedes any prior agreement, while Momenta claims the JVA survived and seeks rectification of OA2's entire agreement clause.
Legal Principles
Strike out jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(2)
CPR 3.4(2)
Summary judgment principles as per Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 399 (Ch)
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 399 (Ch)
Rectification principles as per Chartbrook v Persimmon [2009] 3 WLR 267 and UBS AG (London Branch) v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH [2014] EWHC 3615 (Comm)
Chartbrook v Persimmon [2009] 3 WLR 267; UBS AG (London Branch) v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH [2014] EWHC 3615 (Comm)
American Cyanamid principles for proprietary freezing orders
American Cyanamid
Principles for non-proprietary freezing orders
Outcomes
Cheval's strike-out application dismissed.
Momenta's claim discloses a cause of action, and the existence of the JVA and its survival are factual issues requiring a trial.
Momenta's interim injunction application granted (modified).
Momenta has a serious issue to be tried, damages are inadequate, the cross-undertaking is sufficient, and the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction, although with modifications to allow certain deductions.