BL-2025-000377 - [2025] EWHC 2976 (Ch)

I do not understand it to be in dispute but that, subject to the issue of reflective loss, Mr Dekel is to be considered to have a real prospect of success in relation to a claim for damages for breach of contract if he can establish, for the purposes of clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement, that he is a “party … who has provided finance and/or refinance … in connection with the Property and/or any part or parts thereof comprising the Project, the works comprising the Project and/or in each case any part or parts thereof …” , or at least that he stands a real prospect of success at trial in demonstrating that he is such a party.

On behalf of Mr Dekel, it is submitted that the investment of £4m in CLL BVI amounted to him “providing finance” in connection with the Property/Project so as to qualify him for the purposes of clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement. On behalf of the Defendants, it is submitted that it is clear that, as a matter of true construction of clause 20.1.2, the reference to “finance” therein is a reference to direct finance provided for the Property/Project, rather than investment in a company (CLL BVI) that, itself, directly provided the relevant finance.

This raises a question of interpretation in respect of clause 20.1.2 of the Management Agreement.

It is the Defendants’ case that this is the type of short point of construction that it is appropriate to resolve in a summary judgement application on the basis that all the relevant evidence is before the court, and that there is only a speculative prospect of further evidence coming to light to shed a different light on matters. With what I detected to be some diffidence, it was submitted on behalf of Mr Dekel that the full relevant facts in relation to the background to the Management Agreement would only emerge at trial.