Conclusions
Overall Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that Mr Dekel has no right to claim for breach of the Management Agreement as a party falling within clause 20.1.2 thereof so as to entitle him to rely upon the provisions of s. 1 of the 1999 Act and that, in any event, even if he got over this hurdle, I consider that his claim would be barred by the application of the rule against the recovery of reflective loss.
In the circumstances, I consider that the Defendants are entitled to have the claim struck out and/or to summary judgement with the result that the claim is dismissed.
- Heading
- Mr Dekel’s reliance on clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement 82
- Whether RE Capital was ever bound by the Management Agreement 97
- Background
- The present claim
- The Application
- Principles to be applied in respect of summary judgment and strike out
- The reflective loss issue
- The basis of the rule against reflective loss
- The Defendants’ case
- Mr Dekel’s case
- Determination of the issue
- Mr Dekel’s reliance on clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement
- Principles to be applied in respect of the contractual interpretation
- Mr Dekel’s case
- The Defendants’ position
- Determination
- Whether RE Capital was ever bound by the Management Agreement
- Conclusions
![BL-2025-000377 - [2025] EWHC 2976 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)