Crystalens Ltd v White, England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

MISS KAREN TROY-DAVIS appeared on behalf of CRYSTALENS LIMITED
instructed by Messrs Irena Spence & Co, Cambridge

Judges

MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Crystalens Ltd v. White

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an application by the second defendant pursuant to CPR 3.4 and 24.2 to strike out the claim brought by the claimant company or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The claim alleges that the second defendant, as director of Company B, procured Company B to breach a collaboration agreement made with the claimant company. The application was issued on 23 May 2006. The claimant alleges that the defendant's actions caused Company B to breach the contract, which was dated 18 August 1995. The defendant contends that he was acting bona fide and within his authority as director of Company B and thus cannot be personally liable for the breach. The claimant disputes this, alleging that the defendant acted in bad faith and outside his authority, primarily to benefit a holding company, Company A, and himself personally.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Particulars of Claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the second defendant.
Whether the second defendant, as a director acting within his authority, can be personally liable for procuring a breach of contract committed by Company B.
Whether the claimant has adequately pleaded the necessary intention (mental element) required for the tort of inducing breach of contract.
Whether the claim is statute barred by limitation.
Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success on the claim as presently pleaded or with potential amendment.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

The Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds and are imprecise, likely obstructing just disposal.
The defendant was acting solely as director of Company B, within his authority, and cannot be personally liable for the company’s breach of contract.
The claimant has failed to plead the defendant’s intention with sufficient particularity, which is required for the tort of inducing breach of contract.
The claim is time-barred as the alleged acts began prior to the limitation period.
Even if the claimant alleges bad faith or acting outside authority, the evidence does not support a reasonable prospect of success.

Claimant's Arguments

The claimant accepts that the Particulars of Claim require amendment to clarify the identity of the claimant, the defendant’s intention, and the date of the tort.
The claimant alleges the defendant was not acting bona fide or within authority but was acting in his own interests and those of the holding company, Company A, to the detriment of Company B.
The claimant relies on a witness statement from its chairman alleging the defendant’s bad faith conduct in procuring the breach.
The claimant contends that these allegations are sufficient to allow the claim to proceed and to amend the Particulars of Claim accordingly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497	A director acting bona fide and within authority is not personally liable for the company’s breach of contract.	The court reaffirmed this principle as the general rule governing director liability in such circumstances.
D.C. Thompson v Deakins [1952] 1 Ch 646	Approval of the rule in Said v Butt regarding director liability.	The court cited this case to support the established principle of no personal liability for directors acting within authority.
Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Limited [1992] BCLC 148	Endorsement of the principle that directors acting bona fide and within authority incur no personal liability.	The court relied on this authority to confirm the longstanding acceptance of the principle.
Douglas v Hello Limited No.3 [2006] QB 125	Requirement to plead intention for economic torts such as inducing breach of contract.	Referenced by defendant to argue insufficiency of claimant’s pleading on intention.
Mainstream Properties Limited v Young [2005] IRLR 964	Clarification on the mental element required for economic torts.	Used to support the defendant’s argument on the necessity of pleading intention.
McFadden v 481782 Ontario Limited [1994] 47 OR 2d 134	Directors may be personally liable if acting in bad faith and outside authority.	Referenced to acknowledge exceptions to the general rule on director liability.
Cooks Grey Sky Ferry Limited v Genus Thompson International Limited [1993] 2 NZ LR 72	Distinguishing liability where directors act bona fide versus bad faith.	Supported the proposition that bad faith conduct may give rise to personal liability.
Evans v Spritebrand 1 W.L.R. 317	Director personal liability in tort cases involving statutory breaches.	Distinguished as involving tort and statutory provisions, not general contract breach.
Mancetter Developments v Garmanson Limited [1986] 1 QB 1212	Director liability for authorising tortious acts by company.	Distinguished as a tort case, not applicable to the present contract claim.
Meridian Global Funds v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500	Attribution of knowledge of directors to the company.	Discussed but not directly relevant to personal liability for breach of contract.
Centropac Partnership v The Foreign Currency Consultants Limited [1989] 4 NZ CLC 64940	Directors acting bona fide and within authority not personally liable.	Supported the general rule applied by the court in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered whether the Particulars of Claim disclosed reasonable grounds and found that the identity and intention issues could be rectified by amendment. The critical issue was whether the second defendant, as director acting bona fide and within authority, could be personally liable for procuring the breach by Company B. The court reaffirmed the well-established principle from Said v Butt and subsequent authorities that a director acting within the scope of authority and bona fide is not personally liable for the company’s breach of contract. The court distinguished cases cited by the claimant that involved tortious or statutory breaches, which do not alter the general rule in contract cases.

The claimant’s allegation that the defendant acted in bad faith and outside authority was considered, based on a late witness statement from the claimant’s chairman. The court found no credible evidence supporting this assertion. The defendant’s evidence and internal company documents showed he acted as part of the corporate management team, responding to the claimant company’s failure to pay invoices. The court noted the delay in bringing the claim against the defendant personally, which undermined its credibility.

Applying the test under CPR 24 for summary judgment, the court concluded the claimant had no real prospect of success on the claim against the defendant personally, whether as currently pleaded or with amendment. The court therefore granted the defendant’s application to strike out and for summary judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is that the application by the second defendant to strike out the claim and for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Particulars of Claim are struck out in their entirety as they stand, and even if amended to allege bad faith or acting outside authority, the claimant has no reasonable prospect of success.

The direct effect is that the claimant’s claim against the second defendant is dismissed. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed the longstanding principle that directors acting bona fide and within their authority are not personally liable for breaches of contract committed by their companies. The claimant’s late attempt to assert bad faith was found unsupported and insufficient to proceed.