![[2025] EWHC 2674 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3
Ground 3
In view of my conclusions on Grounds 1 and 2, Ground 3 does not arise. In any event, it would not have been determinative if, as Mr Weaver KC realistically accepted, an application to join OAT to the Rule 18.34 application would succeed if an otherwise viable Rule 18.34 application was available.
- Heading
- This is an appeal against an Order of ICC Judge Greenwood dated 28 November 2024 (“ the Judge ”) which dismissed the Appellants’ challenge to the Respondent’s (“ Mr Ridgley ”s) remuneration and expens
- The background
- Ground 1: The scope of r.18.34 and Pt 18 of the 2016 Rules
- Two contextual matters
- The status of secured assets in a liquidation or administration
- The law relating to fiduciary obligations
- Part 18 of the 2016 Rules
- Part 18
- Arguments from consequence
- Conclusion
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Conclusions