Onecom v EVE Connect: High Court rejects bid to strike out 22-year loss of profits claim

The High Court has dismissed an application for summary judgement or strike-out of a claim by Onecom Group and associated companies seeking loss of profits over a projected 22-year period following the termination of a telecommunications services agreement.

In Onecom Group Limited & Ors v EVE Connect Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2723 (Comm), Mrs Justice Dias found that the defendants had not established that the claim was bound to fail or that it amounted to an abuse of process. However, she criticised the claimants’ presentation of their financial case and indicated that they would be required to provide clearer particulars of their loss calculations.

The dispute stems from transactions in February 2021, when Onecom acquired part of a telecommunications business associated with James Palmer. A separate master services agreement allowed the business to supply the “eve” connectivity product to reseller customers. The parties later became embroiled in competing allegations of unlawful conduct, including conspiracy, interference with contractual arrangements and alleged unauthorised access to a web portal.

The agreement was terminated in November 2024. Onecom alleges that the termination was wrongful and that the defendants subsequently sought to poach its customers. It claims substantial losses, including profits it says it would have earned from those customers. The defendants dispute the claim and argue that the alleged future losses have been overstated.

The application was brought by EVE Connect and Mr Palmer. They argued that the claim for profits extending 22 years into the future was unsustainable under the principle in Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278. The defendants contended that the supplier could lawfully have terminated the agreement on 28 February 2026, meaning losses beyond that date should not be recoverable. They also argued that the claim was abusive and that the claimants had failed to comply adequately with an earlier order requiring further information about their calculations.

Contractual termination and the loss calculation

Mrs Justice Dias considered whether the Lavarack principle required the court to assume that the supplier would have exercised its contractual right to terminate, or merely that it could have done so. The authorities, including The Golden Victory and Bunge SA v Nidera BV, raised questions requiring fuller argument.

The judge held that it was at least arguable that the supplier’s hypothetical decision to terminate would need to be established as a factual matter. That issue was unsuitable for summary determination.

She also noted that the claim was not confined to profits from supplying the eve product. Onecom’s case was that, without the alleged wrongful poaching, it could have continued supplying its customers with eve or alternative products. That opportunity might have survived the agreement’s termination, meaning the end of the contract did not automatically rule out all subsequent losses.

The judge stressed that the 22-year period would require scrutiny. Disputed matters included the duration of customer relationships, the relevance of comparable supply arrangements, customer churn, technological change and the assumptions underpinning the discounted cash flow methodology. Those issues involved contested facts and expert evidence, making them inappropriate for summary disposal.

The court also rejected the argument that the claim was an abuse of process. Although the scale of the claimed future profits raised serious questions, an ambitious claim was not necessarily abusive. Evidence that the claimants’ expert supported the methodology meant the court could not conclude that they lacked a genuine belief in their case.

On compliance with the earlier order for further information, the judge found substantial compliance and declined to strike out the claim on that basis.

Claimants ordered to clarify their case

Despite dismissing the application, Mrs Justice Dias considered the claimants’ particulars of loss unsatisfactory. The calculations had changed repeatedly, an incorrect formula had been identified, and important assumptions had not been adequately explained. The judge was particularly concerned that a proposed counterfactual involving customer migration had not been properly pleaded.

Rather than order a separate preliminary trial, which risked adding cost and delay ahead of the trial listed for April 2027, the judge indicated that the claimants should replead their loss of profits case promptly. This should identify the factual assumptions underlying the counterfactual, explain broadly how customer churn had been factored into the growth rate, correct errors and update information about mitigation.

The ruling leaves the substantive dispute for trial while requiring Onecom to present a clearer and more transparent account of how its claimed losses have been calculated.