Claim No: BL-2022-002046 - [2025] EWHC 2534 (Ch)

As I have summarised, by his proposed claim relating to the Intervening Period the claimant seeks to compel the retrospective payment to him of a profit share for the period, from 2012-2015, when he was not in fact an LLP member. The claimant does not allege that his non-receipt of a profit share was as a result of some default on the part of the defendants. Rather his case appears simply to be that he was not allocated a profit share when, by reason of the retrospectivity of the deed of adherence, he was entitled to it. Neither the LLP (from which any profit share was to come), nor Holdings, which managed the profit share payments on a day to day basis, is any longer a party to the claim (by agreement with the claimant) and they have been dissolved in any event. This claim therefore has no prospect of success. I cannot give permission for the proposed amendments in respect of it. (As it happens, I am very doubtful that there is an implied term, in the deed of adherence in particular, which can be the basis for such a retrospective payment. However, in the light of TTE, in the circumstances of this case it is not appropriate for me to summarily determine this further question).