Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors [2013] EWHC 44 (Ch) (18 January 2013)
The Claimant, Mr Mahmood, claimed he was owed money under a consultancy agreement with the First and Second Defendants. He also claimed restitutionary damages against the Third and Fourth Defendants, for whom Steven Thompson is acting, on the basis that they had benefited from his services.
This judgment is the result of an appeal by the Claimant against a decision by the Master to strike out large parts of his case against the First and Second Defendants as well as to strike out in its entirety the claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants. The judgment includes a review of the rules regarding striking out claims in CPR 24.2 as well as of unjust enrichment.
Whilst the claims against the First and Second Defendants were allowed to proceed, the judge accepted Steven’s arguments and upheld the striking out of the claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants.
The Claimant also applied to have further evidence considered that had not been available to the Master. Whilst the judge accepted that the CPR inclined towards accepting such evidence, he ruled that, in this case, he had no need to look at that further evidence.
