Hanlon and Another v Rayson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice David Richards |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 1168 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | A3/2015/1810 & A3/2015/1810(A) |
| Date | 08 November 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 1168
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice David Richards
A3/2015/1810 & A3/2015/1810(A)
Mr J Small (instructed by Josiah Hincks Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicants
The Respondents were not present and were not represented
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against an order of His Honour Judge Bird sitting in the Manchester District Registry of the Chancery Division whereby on 15 May 2015 he dismissed an application by the First Defendant, Mr Carl Rayson, to strike out paragraph 6 of the reply and parts of the Claimant's witness statements. Paragraph 6 of the reply referred to a meeting between Mr Rayson and the First Claimant, Mr Hanlon, and others held on 16 December 2013 which Mr Rayson alleged was a without prejudice meeting held with a view to compromising the dispute which existed between the parties.
The judge held, having considered the documentary evidence and having heard oral evidence, that the meeting on 16 December 2013 was not a without prejudice meeting. He went on to hold that if he was wrong on that, then the privileged nature of the meeting had been waived as a result of the service by Mr Rayson of a witness statement in which he referred to and dealt with that meeting. Mr Rayson did so in circumstances where at that time the reply contained the paragraph to which I have referred and indeed the witness statement served by or behalf of the Claimant's also dealt with that meeting.
The application to strike out paragraph 6 and the relevant passages in the Claimant's witness statements was issued virtually simultaneously with the service of the witness statements. They, the witness statements, were served pursuant to directions which had been given by Judge Pelling.
The dispute between Mr Hanlon and the other Claimant, Devereaux International Foundation, a body controlled, as I understand it, by Mr Hanlon on the one hand and Mr Rayson on the other, related to a loan or loans made to Mr Rayson. The background to this was that Mr Hanlon had transferred substantial sums to a company or firm of accountants run by his nephew, a Mr Ryder, and as it appears, Mr Ryder had fraudulently disposed of a significant part of those sums.
The records available to Mr Hanlon indicated that substantial sums in the amount of approaching £500,000 had been advanced to Mr Rayson or the companies associated with him, whereas Mr Rayson denied that sums on that scale had been advanced by him, but did accept, as I understand it, that some sums had been advanced by him. The background, therefore, to the dispute is a little different from that which often arises where in this case the Claimant, Mr Hanlon, did not have direct knowledge of the facts relevant to his claims or possible claims.
The parties met, as I have mentioned, on 16 December 2013. According to the findings made by the judge, there was quickly resolved between Mr Hanlon and Mr Rayson the amounts which had in fact been advanced by or behalf of Mr Hanlon to Mr Rayson. In short, Mr Rayson accepted that a sum of £85,000 had been advanced to him and that Mr Hanlon or Devereaux International Foundation was the creditor in respect of that loan. It was also agreed that it had been advanced on terms as to interest at a rate of 1 per cent a month.
The case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP
...well as more recent case law. The most recent consideration of this area occurred in the Court of Appeal decision in Bentine v Bentine [2016] EWCA Civ 1168 albeit that it involved considering special circumstances in the context of the incidence of costs at the end of a Solicitors Act asses......