The Tucker defendants sought to strike out a particular subparagraph in the statement of claim claiming that one of the Tucker defendants had the opportunity to use fruits of alleged breached of duty in trade or business. The Court found that the challenged subparagraph was unnecessary and had created unintended and unhelpful consequences, and that the Tucker defendants’ entitlement to compound interest in such challenged paragraph had arisen by way of presumption. As a result, on the ground that the law did not require the plaintiff to plead expressly an entitlement to presumption that the alleged wrongdoer had made profit from relevant funds or effect of presumption, the Court ordered that the challenged subparagraph be struck out and the plaintiff have leave to replead fact appropriate for entitlement.
Michael Hodge QC (leading D L Tay) appeared for the Tucker defendants, instructed by Bartley Cohen.
The judgment is published here.