Onecom Group Limited & Ors v Eve Connect Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2723 (Comm)
Dias J has dismissed an application to strike out a c.£17m claim for loss of profits in conspiracy proceedings in the Commercial Court.
Onecom is a leading UK telecoms provider. It claims that Mr James Palmer, his personal driver, and two companies under Mr Palmer’s control, FTP and Eve Connect, conspired to injure Onecom by unlawful means, including the unlawful termination of a Master Services Agreement (‘MSA’) under which FTP supplied Onecom with Eve, a telephony service. Onecom alleges that the conspiracy resulted in Onecom losing the entirety of its Eve customer base in late 2024 and that, but for the conspiracy, Onecom would have retained its Eve customers and supplied them with Eve or equivalent services for many years. Onecom claims damages for loss of profits quantified over 22 years using a discounted cash flow model.
Mr Palmer and Eve Connect applied to strike out the loss of profits claim, alternatively for summary judgment. They contended that: (1) the claim had no real prospect of success because FTP was entitled to terminate the MSA in February 2026 and the principle in Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278 (viz., that damages for breach of contract should be assessed on the basis of the defendant’s minimum contractual obligation) therefore precluded any claim for loss of profits after February 2026; and (2) the claim had been deliberately exaggerated to enable Onecom to assert a set-off against debts otherwise due to Mr Palmer, and was therefore an abuse of process.
Dias J dismissed the application. As to (1), Dias J held, following an analysis of the authorities, that it was arguable that the principle in Lavarack only applied where the defendant ‘would’, rather than ‘could’, have terminated the contract in the counterfactual, and that the question of whether FTP ‘would’ have terminated the MSA in February 2026 was inherently unsuitable for summary determination (at [43]-[57]). As to (2), Dias J found it “impossible” to conclude that the claim was an abuse of process: Onecom had made periodic payments to Mr Palmer whenever the debts falling due to him exceeded the value of Onecom’s claims. This was, on its face, inconsistent with the suggestion that the purpose of the claim was to avoid paying debts due to Mr Palmer (at [65]-[66]).
Dias J also held that the application was not, on analysis, a proper application for strike out or summary judgment. The defendants did not contend that Onecom was precluded from asserting a claim for loss of profits: their sole complaint was that the figure claimed was “too high”. The defendants were not seeking a final determination of any claim or issue, and the orders they sought would not save time or costs at trial. This of itself was a ground for dismissing the application (at [73]).
Edmund Nourse KC and Matthew Barry acted for Onecom, instructed by Goodwin Procter (UK) LLP.