High Court Emphasizes Legal Principles in Your Lawyers Limited v Capital Interchange Limited Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 287 (Ch)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice in “Your Lawyers Limited v Capital Interchange Limited & Anor” dealt with a complex scenario whereby a claimant, Your Lawyers Limited (YLL), brought proceedings against two defendants, alleging breach of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and conspiracy using unlawful means. This case note meticulously examines the key facets of the case, emphasizing the legal principles applicable to strike-out applications, summary judgment, abuse of process, and the interpretation of non-disclosure agreements, as construed by the court.

Key Facts

YLL initiated proceedings against Capital Interchange Limited (CIL) and Therium, accusing them of disseminating confidential information without permission and forming a conspiracy to deprive YLL of a potential litigation advantage in what became known as the “Emissions Litigation.” CIL and Therium’s defense hinged on a series of applications to strike out YLL’s claim or, alternatively, for summary judgments, asserting that YLL disclosed no reasonable grounds for the claim, constituting an abuse of court process.

The context involved previous proceedings between YLL and Harcus Sinclair, revolving around the Volkswagen emissions scandal, where a judgment was made restricting Harcus Sinclair from representing any group of claimants other than YLL’s in the Emissions Litigation. YLL’s current claims against CIL and Therium are closely tied to the events and outcomes of the previous case.

The judgment expounds several legal principles that underpin decision-making in civil litigation:

  1. Abuse of Process and Aldi Guidelines: One pivotal aspect pertains to the court’s power to strike out claims that could and should have been brought up in earlier proceedings. The court reaffirmed the flexibility and merits-based approach required in assessing whether a subsequent claim amounts to abuse, considering both private and public interests. Failure to comply with the “Aldi guidelines,” which mandate raising the possibility of multiple linked claims with the court early in proceedings, was scrutinized, albeit with the understanding that it depends on the case’s specific circumstances.

  2. Issue Estoppel: The court deliberated over whether findings from earlier proceedings between different parties could impose an issue estoppel in subsequent litigation. The court concluded that the findings in the HS Judgment did not have an estoppelling effect on YLL in the current proceedings against Therium, as Therium was neither a party nor in privity with parties in the prior action.

  3. Summary Judgment: The principles for granting summary judgment—where a party must demonstrate no real prospect of success—were applied, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that certain claims were bound to fail based on earlier litigation and were hence suitable for summary determination.

  4. Collateral Attack on a Previous Decision: The court considered whether the current proceedings constituted a collateral attack on prior judgments. It identified the potential unfairness and the possibility of the administration of justice being brought into disrepute, but concluded that differing evidence and the specific context negated any such collateral attack in this instance.

  5. Unlawful Means Conspiracy: Assessing the conspiracy claim, the court identified the essential elements of the tort of conspiracy and applied these to the factual matrix. The notion that parties need not have knowledge of the unlawfulness for liability to attach was key, emphasizing the intent and resultant harm to the claimant as focal points.


The applications filed by CIL and Therium were dismissed. The court directed the parties to consider and, if possible, agree on how to handle overlapping issues in this proceeding and the still ongoing Harcus Sinclair proceedings.


In “Your Lawyers Limited v Capital Interchange Limited & Anor,” the court illustrated how fine legal nuances—like a failure to follow prescribed litigation paths and the absence of issue estoppel—can shape the procedural fairness and integrity of adjudicating overlapping claims. The decisions encapsulate the crucial balance courts must maintain in upholding the finality of litigation, preserving the opportunity for claims to be heard fairly, and managing judicial resources efficiently. This case stands as guidance for legal professionals on the thresholds for striking out claims and the significance of procedural compliance within the UK’s legal framework.

Related Summaries