BL-2024-000734 - [2025] EWHC 3003 (Ch)

Ground 3 consists of a challenge to my finding that the use of the words “location, condition, use and operation” had a clear meaning. The argument put forward is that, if further evidence of facts had been obtained, this might have been challenged.

This argument is hopeless on a number of grounds. First, as I said in [56], even the narrowest construction of these words as put forward by the Claimants did not completely undermine the validity of the request for information actually made and, since it is accepted that no response at all to the request was ever given, the challenge would not, even if successful, disturb the finding that there was an event of default under the Charge. Second, although the Claimants may be correct in saying that further information may be found and may be relevant, that information must be wholly within their possession, since it is information relating to negotiations to which they were a party. A party cannot defeat a summary judgment application by asserting the possibility of information which it itself has whilst refusing to say anything about the nature of that information. This ground of appeal therefore has no reasonable prospect of success.