Logistics company includes broker
in counterclaim against Universal Leasing
A logistics company has applied for
Shire Leasing to be co-joined in its claim against Universal
Leasing in what might become a test case linked to the Global
Telecoms & Technology debacle.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The case is due to be heard at Oldham County
Court where, it emerged last month, several other cases are
underway linked to leases of Global’s equipment brokered by Shire,
the UK’s largest lease broker.
Global collapsed in February this year,
leaving hundreds of customers without telecoms services. Many of
these customers subsequently stopped making their payments on
leases linked to equipment supplied by Global, alleging they had
been led to believe their lease agreements included services.
One of these customers, HSF (UK) Ltd, the UK
arm of Dutch transport company HSF Logistics BV, was sued by
Universal for breach of contract after it stopped making lease
payments on telecoms equipment supplied by Global.
Suffolk-based HSF counterclaimed in June,
alleging it had been forced to stop the payments after a
disappearance of services provided by Global Telecoms rendered the
leased equipment to be useless.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataIn recent weeks, HSF, which rooted its
counterclaim against Universal on frustration of contract, applied
to Oldham County Court, where the other cases were being heard, to
include Shire Leasing and Global in its action.
This application, which was made on the basis
that both Shire and Global were party to the original contracts
signed by HSF, is due to be heard some time after 9 December.
HSF has also applied for two orders from the
court: firstly, that Universal disclose the details of legal
representatives for the defendants in any other Global cases to be
heard at Oldham; and secondly, that those other cases be stayed
pending a decision on HSF Logistics vs Universal Leasing. These
directions will again be considered in December, likely at the same
time as the application to include Shire and Global.
Also in December, probably on the same date,
Oldham County Court is due to hear an application by Universal’s
solicitors, DTM Legal, to strike out HSF’s claim. This was
originally due to be heard on 4 November.
There are indications that HSF vs Universal
may be made into a lead case for all these disputes involving
leases on Global telecoms equipment assigned to Universal by
Shire.
Sources said there are 11 other cases
involving equipment supplied by Global, brokered by Shire and
leased by Universal which are due to be heard by Oldham County
Court.
When this was put to Universal managing
director Michael Hughes, he commented: “We are not involved in
anything like 11 cases.”
HSF is being represented by Suffolk-based
Tinkler Solicitors, as well as by barrister Austen Morgan of 3
Temple Gardens, London.
A representative for Shire Leasing
acknowledged that the company had done business with HSF in 2006,
but stated Shire had received no communications from the court, or
from Universal, regarding HSF.
A Shire Leasing spokesperson said: “We entered
into a hire agreement with HSF in August 2006. As far as we are
aware they have never complained or raised any issue with Shire and
neither have Universal notified us of any problems.”
Fred Crawley
