The Application
The Application
The present claim having been issued on 21 March 2025, and having been served together with Particulars of Claim, the Defendants issued the present application on 29 May 2025.
As I have touched upon, strike out and/or summary judgement is sought on three bases, namely:
As a matter of true construction of clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement, no entitlement pursuant to s 1(1) of the 1999 Act to enforce the terms of the Management Agreement arose, because Mr Dekel did not, by expending £4m in subscribing for shares in CLL BVI, “provide finance or refinance in connection with the Property”;
In any event, the bar on a shareholder seeking to recover loss reflective of the same loss as that suffered by the company in which he is a shareholder applies in the present case, the fact that the loss claimed is reflective loss being said to be demonstrated by the way that the claim for damages is formulated in the Particulars of Claim.
In any event in the case of RE Capital, the latter never became bound by the terms of the Management Agreement because, in short, the Deeds of Assignment of Contract and Subcontract dated 28 May 2021 effected an assignment of the benefit of the Management Agreement, but not of its burdens, whether by novation or otherwise.
These issues were argued in the above order. However, I find it convenient to deal with the reflective loss issue first on the assumption that Mr Dekel is correct regarding the true construction of clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement. However, it is first necessary to consider the principles to be applied in an application to strike out, and for summary judgement.
- 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)