WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
Pradeep Morjaria & Ors v Camran Mirza & Ors
7 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2222 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies had a business deal gone wrong. One company sued the other, saying they cheated them out of money. The judge said even though the accused company wasn't perfectly clear about their records, it wasn't bad enough to throw out their defense completely. The case will continue to trial.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over a joint venture for property development at 22-24 Uxbridge Road, Ealing.
- •Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 14 December 2007 between Morjarias and Mirzas.
- •Claimants (Morjarias) allege Mirzas' companies (Tydwell and Redwire) made unjustified profits from contracts with joint venture entities.
- •Claimants allege inflated invoices and breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
- •Defendants (Mirzas and related companies) claim entitlement to fees and services based on various contracts.
- •Part 18 orders sought and made to clarify defendants' case on fees and services.
- •Defendants' responses to Part 18 orders deemed inadequate by claimants.
- •Claimants applied to strike out part of the re-amended defence and counterclaim.
Legal Principles
Court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or shows failure to comply with a court order.
CPR r 3.4(2)
A defence may be struck out if it contains a bare denial or facts that don't amount to a defence.
Practice Direction 3A, paragraph 1.4
The purpose of pleadings is to inform the other party of the case and enable them to respond effectively; vague or incoherent pleadings lead to wasted time and costs.
Towler v Wills [2010] EWHC 1209 (Comm) at [18]
Court should not strike out a claim unless certain it is bound to fail; focus is on the statement of case, not evidence.
Nekoti v Univilla Ltd [2016] EWHC 556 (Ch)
Striking out a statement of case is a powerful remedy and should only be used when justified.
Walsham Chalet Park Ltd v Tallington Lakes Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1607 at [44]
Remedy for abuse should be proportionate to the abuse; litigants should not be deprived of their claims unless the abuse is clearly established.
Alpha Rocks Solicitors v Alade [2015] 1 WLR 4534 at [24]
Outcomes
Application to strike out part of the re-amended defence and counterclaim dismissed.
Defendants' inability to provide invoice-by-invoice particulars does not render their defence unsustainable; phase-by-phase approach is acceptable; breaches of court orders not proportionate to justify strike-out.
Permission granted for defendants to rely on expert evidence.
Expert evidence on market rates for services is relevant, even with phase-by-phase particulars.
Extension of time granted for the second RFI response.
Proportionate response given the circumstances and the efforts made by the defendants.
Application for a conditional order (payment into court) refused.
Defendants have provided the best particulars possible; conditional order not proportionate; credibility of both sides in issue.
Similar Cases
RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 708 (TCC)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Reeds Carpeting Contractors Limited v Martin Cairns & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2713 (Comm)