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

The eight ground is that the Claimants say that paragraph [93] of the judgment constitute a finding that the Claimants were in some way bound by the doctrine of res judicata in respect of the decision ICC Judge Prentis on the Defendants’ remuneration application. It does not. The relevant section of the judgment ([93]) reads as follows.

“It seems to me to be entirely clear that the Claimants would be estopped per rem judicata from denying that they were liable to pay the administrators their costs as awarded by ICC Judge Prentis, and they do not dispute that. The issue, however, is that the Defendants say that by recognising that the administrators are entitled to receive their fees as administrators under Rule 18.23, they have in fact accepted that the administrators are validly appointed as such, and cannot now challenge that appointment.”

This is not a finding of res judicata, and the Claimants cannot appeal against a finding which I did not make. This ground of appeal therefore has no reasonable prospect of success.