Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd v Baskan Gida Sanayi VE Pazarlama AS & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, April 09, 2008, [2008] EWHC 659 (Ch)

Reporting Judge: [2008] EWHC 659 (Ch)

President: Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd v Baskan Gida Sanayi VE Pazarlama AS & Ors

Linked as:

Extract

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd v Baskan Gida Sanayi VE Pazarlama AS & Ors, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, April 09, 2008, [2008] EWHC 659 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 659 (Ch)

Case No: HC03C02596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 09/04/2008

Before :

MR JUSTICE BRIGGS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr John Wardell QC, Mr Thomas Grant and Mr Alexander Winter (instructed by Forsters LLP, 31 Hill Street, London W1J 5LS) for the Claimants

Mr Raymond Werbicki (of Steptoe & Johnson, 99 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7NG) for the Twelfth Defendant

Hearing dates: 2nd - 3rd April 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentMr Justice Briggs :

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application by the twelfth defendant Mr Shabbir Abidali to strike out the claimant Banks' claims against him pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) and, in the alternative, for defendant's summary judgment on all claims against him pursuant to CPR 24.2.

2. Mr Abidali was added as a defendant to these proceedings on 2nd February 2007. The proceedings are listed for an eight week trial commencing in October this year. The Banks' claims against Mr Abidali are set out in Re-Amended Particulars of Claim (``RAPOC''), pursuant to permission to re-amend given on 10th May 2007. Mr Abidali's application was made on 30th November 2007, and was based upon the following four grounds:

(1) The RAPOC is ``unreasonably vague, wanting in particularity and discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims against the twelfth defendant''.

(2) The Claimants have no real prospect of success against the twelfth defendant.

(3) It would be oppressive and unfair to require the twelfth defendant to defend the claims.

(4) There is no compelling reason for a trial of the claims against the twelfth defendant.

3. It is convenient to deal briefly with grounds (3) and (4) first. In support of ground (3) Mr Werbicki for Mr Abidali focussed his submissions on the substantial inequality of arms a...

See the full content of this document