High Court explores extension of conspiracy torts in Patel v Minerva case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 172 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Pankim Kumar Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors, the High Court of Justice in the Business and Property Courts addressed a claimant’s application to amend his Claim Form and Points of Claim. This judgement, presided over by Master Pester, delved into the nuanced aspects of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and the extension of these torts to foreign proceedings and arbitrations.

Key Facts

The case revolves around the claim for both unlawful and lawful means conspiracy by the claimant, Pankim Patel, against three defendants: Minerva Services Delaware, Inc (MSD), Paul Baxendale-Walker, and Mark Barry Slater. The substantive basis of the claim hinges upon the initiation of legal and arbitration proceedings, which were asserted not to have legitimate purpose but to pressure Mr. Patel. These included prior court proceedings and an arbitration in Delaware. A central debate was whether actions could be seen as the torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process, particularly concerning foreign and arbitration proceedings. The contentious course of litigation included the discontinuance of previous claims against Mr. Patel and applications for various injunctions.

The judgment extensively cites relevant case law to determine whether an amendment application can be granted, examining the pertinent principles:

  1. Real Prospect of Success: Drawing from cases like Elite Property Holdings Ltd v Barclays bank plc and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd, sufficient prospect of success more than merely arguable must be established.

  2. Recognisable and Maintainable Claims: The assertions should align with the current state of law, indicating a hesitancy to permit speculative claims in hope of the law evolving (Mandrake Holdings Limited v Countrywide Assured Group plc, Partco Group Ltd v Wragg).

  3. Pleading Facts, Not Evidence: It is necessary to plead facts that constitute the cause of action as distinguished from evidentiary details to prove those facts (Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd).

  4. Speculation and Invention: Claims should not be based on groundless speculation or imaginary scenarios (Clark v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd).

  5. Disclosure and Litigation Embarkment: The ability to embark on litigation is not negated by the lack of full facts without disclosure (Gulati v MGN Ltd).

  6. Striking Out Partial Claims: Lord Hope’s guidance in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) was cautiously approached, considering the modern expectations of precision in pleadings.

Furthermore, the case examined the extension of malicious prosecution and abuse of process torts to foreign proceedings and arbitrations, signifying an evolving legal landscape.

Outcomes

The judgment granted Mr. Patel permission to amend his Points of Claim with specified exceptions. It refined the ambit of malicious prosecution and abuse of process torts while setting the parameters for pleading these in the context of foreign and arbitration procedures.

The key rulings include:

  1. Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process in Foreign Courts: The claim’s extension into foreign courts for malicious prosecution and abuse of process is plausible, pending a full trial given the jurisprudential developments highlighted by Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd and Willers v Joyce.

  2. Malicious Prosecution and Arbitrations: Conversely, malicious prosecution was not considered extendable to arbitration proceedings, in line with the legal understanding that it is a legal process tort.

  3. Amendments on Controlling Minds and Other Pleadings: Permission was granted for amendments relating to the directing minds behind companies, signatures on key documents, and dialectics on the combination and conspiracy between the parties.

  4. Loss and Damages: The court maintained the claimant’s position on loss and damages incurred from the Delaware and High Court Proceedings as a potentially recoverable head of loss.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in Patel v Minerva provides a thoughtful navigation of complex legal principles related to conspiracy and tortious liability, reaffirming the cautious approach of courts in granting amendments to pleadings, while simultaneously highlighting the potential expansion of traditional torts to cater to modern legal disputes. It underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring the rigour and substantive validity of claims while allowing for the evolution of tort within the boundaries of contemporary legal practices. Judicial prudence is thus exercised in the balance between established doctrine and its incremental development.