Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is a motion brought by the last four defendants that the plaintiff's action as against the said defendants be dismissed or stayed under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and under 0. 19 r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts on the grounds that the plenary summons and statement of claim disclose no reasonable cause of action against the said defendants and that such action (if any) as is disclosed by the pleadings is not maintainable at the suit of the plaintiff personally and is bound to fail.
The statement of claim makes claims against the last four defendants singly, collectively, and collectively with the first defendant for alleged breaches of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (the Treaty) and for alleged conspiracy causing damage to the plaintiff. It is these claims which are the subject of the last four defendants' motion to dismiss or stay and the terms of the statement of claim in relation to them must therefore be considered in detail.
No allegation of any wrongdoing is made against any of the last four defendants in the first 16 paragraphs of the statement of claim. Those paragraphs contain descriptions of all the parties to the action and also, in the case of the plaintiff, an averment that he is the owner of 7.2% of the issued share capital of the second defendant and was chief executive of the second defendant until 6 September 1988. Those paragraphs also contain allegations in relation to the plaintiff's claim against the first and second defendants for damages for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal.
It is quite clear that the allegations in paragraph 17 of the statement of claim are of wrongs committed by the third defendant against the second defendant.
I am satisfied that the true meaning of paragraph 18 is that the first, fifth and sixth defendants unlawfully advised the third and fourth defendants to implement policies and practices of competition with the second defendant for air transport business which were contrary to the competition rules of the Treaty.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.