Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2420 (Ch)
William Andrew Tinkler v Esken Limited & Ors
17 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1490 (Ch)
High Court
Mr. Tinkler sued twice, first for fraud, then for conspiracy. The fraud case was lost. The judge ruled the conspiracy case was essentially the same as the fraud case, just trying to win after losing the first time. Because Mr. Tinkler had earlier agreed the second case was pointless if the first failed, the judge threw out the conspiracy case and made Mr. Tinkler pay the costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Tinkler brought a Fraud Claim and a Conspiracy Claim against Esken Limited and others.
- •The Fraud Claim was dismissed, and appeals were exhausted.
- •Defendants sought to strike out the Conspiracy Claim.
- •Mr. Tinkler initially admitted the Conspiracy Claim was parasitic on the Fraud Claim and an abuse of process if the Fraud Claim failed.
- •Mr. Tinkler later argued the Conspiracy Claim was a standalone cause of action.
- •The Conspiracy Claim alleged unlawful means conspiracy to dismiss Mr. Tinkler as an employee and director and later expanded to include shareholder claims.
- •Mr. Tinkler sought to amend the Conspiracy Claim to broaden its scope.
- •The court considered whether Mr. Tinkler could withdraw his prior admission that the Conspiracy Claim was an abuse of process.
Legal Principles
CPR Part 14.5 governs applications to withdraw admissions, considering factors such as grounds for withdrawal, new evidence, conduct of parties, and prejudice.
CPR Part 14.5
CPR Part 3.4 allows striking out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or there's a failure to comply with court orders.
CPR Part 3.4
Abuse of process principles: vexation, repeated litigation, merits-based analysis, fairness, and unjust harassment.
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair [2017] 1 WLR 2646; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Henderson v Henderson abuse: litigating in a second action claims that could/should have been raised in earlier proceedings.
Moorjani v Durban Estates Ltd [2019] EWHC 1229 (TCC)
Aldi Guidelines: a party considering a second action that may be oppressive should raise the issue promptly with the court.
Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748
Striking out for abuse of process is a draconian step, requiring a high hurdle and proportionality.
Orji v Nagra [2023] EWCA Civ 1289
Directors breaching duty under section 171 and conspiring with solicitors to destroy evidence may be liable for unlawful means conspiracy.
Various cases cited by the court
Outcomes
The court refused permission for Mr. Tinkler to withdraw his admission that the Conspiracy Claim was an abuse of process.
Mr. Tinkler's delay in seeking withdrawal, lack of new evidence, and prejudice to the defendants outweighed his explanations.
The Conspiracy Claim was struck out.
It constituted a collateral attack on prior judgments and/or a Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, with no real prospect of success on the merits.
Undertakings given by defendants in the Preservation Order were released.
Conspiracy claim dismissed.
Mr. Tinkler ordered to pay costs.
Dismissal of Conspiracy Claim
Similar Cases
C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 1461