BL-2020-001417 - [2025] EWHC 2487 (Ch)

There are two points which were heavily emphasised by Musst at the trial, and which have been described by Mr Adkin KC as ‘in limine points”. This literally means “at the threshold”, but in context it means points that the wrong party is the claimant, which, if correct, would be fatal to the claim.

The first point was that if anyone did the introductory work as regards the Observatory/2B and LGT/Crown in 2012, it was not the Matrix company which made the assignment to MRL. To be more precise, it was not MMM, that is as defined above, Matrix Money Management Limited, but it was its associated company, MAAM, that is as defined above, Matrix Alternative Asset Management Limited. If this is correct, MRL has no claim because the rights which it acquired by way of assignment were those of MMM and not MAAM.

A second point is that even if rights existed in MMM, it is suggested that they were transferred by MMM in November 2012 whether to BGL or LGBR or Mr Reeves. If this was the case then there was nothing for MMM to transfer to MRL at the time of the assignment.

Despite the characterisation of these points as being preliminary, they are more comprehensible after considering the respective cases on the other issues. They do not exist in a vacuum. Further, nothing is lost by reversing the order because irrespective of the outcome in respect of these issues, there can be no shortcut and the other issues require thorough consideration.

Before considering the issues in detail, this part of the case has been hampered in two respects, one a criticism of the case of Musst and the other a criticism of the case of MRL. As regards the case of Musst, it comprises numerous pages of dense examination of numerous documents in which there is a forensic analysis of the language of documents with a view to finding suggestions which support the case of Musst. In large part, I have found the case difficult to discern through a morass of detail without a big picture or documents which made the case plainly. In the end, this was because the pointers to the conclusions sought to be drawn were in large part not made out and/or abstruse. As regards the case of MRL, I have found the case difficult because it relies in large part on the evidence of Mr Reeves whose evidence is so unsatisfactory as described above.