The parties disputed the arrangements for the intended acquisition by the Claimant of three properties, or more accurately of all or part of the shares in their owning companies. Following a failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders fr disclsure of documents, some defendants had been debarred firm defending the claims as to liability.
Held: ‘Absence of a Defence, by default or because it has been struck out in its entirety, must equally give rise to a deemed admission of all alleged elements constituent of a cause of action. But the admissions are necessarily circumscribed by what is alleged in the Particulars of Claim. When the court comes to give judgment on the claimant’s application it is therefore on that, and that alone, that it is entitled to found.’ Orders were made for he transfers of shares accordingly.
David Donaldson QC
[2014] EWHC 725 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 10-Oct-2013
The court allowed the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. . .
See Also – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 9-Aug-2013
The court was asked first whether the defendants had complied with an unless order made with respect to the disclosure of information required to be provided in aid and in order to ensure the proper release of a freezing order which had previously . .
See Also – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 16-Jan-2014
Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second . .
Cited by:
Appal from – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 4-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the judge at first instance had been right to attribute an agreement which he had not made to the defendants.
Held: The defendants were liable to pay 2.205 million pounds. . .
1st Instance judgment – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522666
