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

On 18 August 2025 I handed down Judgment in this matter striking out the Claimants’ claim form and particulars and giving reverse summary judgment, on the basis that their claim had no real prospects of success. I adjourned that hearing on the basis that the parties required time to consider the issue of an appeal, and I set a timetable in the order made after the Judgment for written submissions to be made as to leave to appeal. I have now received a written application for leave to appeal, along with supporting written submissions from the Claimants, and submissions in response from the Defendants. These submissions were received within the times specified in the order.

This judgment sets out my grounds for refusing the application for leave to appeal. Otherwise unattributed references in square brackets herein are references to paragraphs of my Judgment.

One important procedural point is that the position of the Defendants at the hearing was twofold. The Claimants’ case required them to demonstrate good grounds for a successful challenge to the validity of the Administrators appointment. Their case in this regard turned on the construction of the charge document under which the Administrators were appointed. The Defendants raised two defences to this claim. One was that the Claimants’ arguments on the construction of the Charge were hopeless. The other was that, regardless of the outcome of this challenge, the Claimants were in any event estopped from challenging the validity of the appointment of the administrators by reason of their earlier submissions to the court. I found that the Claimants’ challenge to the Charge had no reasonable prosect of success [104]. However, because I had heard significant argument on the point, I also considered the estoppel point, and concluded that, even had the Claimants succeeded on their construction point, the Claimants would have failed on the estoppel point [101]. Thus, in order to convince me that their appeal has a “reasonable prospect of success”, I would have to be satisfied that they could succeed on both points. As it happens, I think they can succeed on neither.

I will deal with the grounds of appeal in order.