![CL-2024-000271 - [2025] EWHC 2162 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Summary of conclusions.
Overall, therefore, I have concluded that:
TCR had arguably valid claims against the Third Defendant in respect of the alleged conspiracy between the Defendants and the alleged deceit practised on TCR. Those claims were, at the very least arguably, not barred by the rule against reflective loss.
TCR’s claims were arguably validly assigned by virtue of the Second DoA to the Claimant.
In these circumstances, the application by the Third Defendant to strike out the Claimant’s Claim Form and Particulars of Claim (including the proposed Amended Particulars of Claim) and/or for reverse summary judgment must be dismissed.
I would be grateful if the parties would draw up an Order giving effect to this judgment.
- Heading
- Christopher Hancock KC
- The current applications
- The relevant legal principles
- Summary judgment
- The issues
- TCR’s claims: stage 1
- Discussion and conclusions
- Events after April 2009
- Were the claims pleaded assigned by the Second DoA?
- Discussion and conclusions: the construction of the Second DoA
- Conclusions