William Andrew Tinkler v Esken Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1490 (Ch)
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
3 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2420 (Ch)
High Court
Several companies sued other companies for fraud. The accused companies tried to get the case thrown out, saying the accusers were cheating the system. The judge said the accused companies were just trying to re-fight a battle they'd already lost and refused to throw the case out.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (six English companies and one LLP in liquidation, plus joint liquidators) allege fraud orchestrated by Defendants, leading to Claimant Companies' liability to Consortium Banks.
- •Defendants applied to strike out claims or for reverse summary judgment, alleging claims lacked reasonable grounds and constituted an abuse of process.
- •Edwin Johnson J previously ruled that Claimants established a good arguable case (GAC) on most claims, refusing to discharge worldwide freezing orders (WFOs).
- •Defendants' strike-out application, issued earlier, was not heard at the October 2022 hearing.
- •Claimants argued that pursuing certain points in the strike-out application constituted an abuse of process, amounting to relitigation of already decided points.
- •The Claimants' case is that the Defendants’ conduct caused the Claimant Companies to participate in the Alleged Fraud, exposing them to claims from their creditors, leading to the present claims against the Defendants.
- •The Court heard arguments about the abuse of process and the suitability of the issues for summary determination.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
Abuse of process in interlocutory hearings
Koza Limited v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS [2020] EWCA Civ 1018
Summary judgment principles
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Striking out a statement of case
CPR r.3.4(2)(a)
Principles concerning summary determination
Williams & Humbert Ltd v W&H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368
Abuse of corporate insolvency regime
Various cases discussed in sections [136]
Outcomes
Defendants' strike-out application concerning Strike Out Points (1) to (8) dismissed as an abuse of process.
These points sought to relitigate issues already decided in the November judgment; the test used in the November judgment was at least as high as the strike-out test; and the Defendants did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances.
Defendants' strike-out application concerning Strike Out Point (9) (Contribution claim) dismissed.
While the pleading lacked particulars, it was considered sufficient at this early stage of proceedings, and the Defendants could seek further particulars.
Defendants' abuse of process argument dismissed.
The core of the argument was dependent on points already rejected; the Claimants’ actions were not for an improper purpose; any complaints about the liquidations were matters internal to those proceedings and did not affect the fairness of the present ones; and there was no manifest unfairness in the proceedings.
Overall strike out application dismissed.
Based on the above findings on abuse of process and the merits of the strike out applications.
Similar Cases
WWRT v Serhiy Tyshchenko & Anor
[2023] EWHC 79 (Ch)
Andrew Anderson Kelsall & Anor (as joint liquidators of Gamenation (UK) Limited) v Biljana Stajic & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3020 (Ch)
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Akkurate Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v John Christopher Richmond & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2392 (Ch)