BR-2024-000761 - [2025] EWHC 2900 (Ch)

The approach I have taken is to conduct a proportionate investigation of the points advanced at the hearing and the legal submissions made.

I have taken the view that the written evidence given by Mr Leahy should not be disbelieved without cross-examination. This is particularly so in respect of his evidence that there was agreement between SIA and himself that limb 1 of the Effective Date would not be enforced or otherwise relied upon by SIA.

In considering the inherent plausibility of the evidence I have had regard to the evidence of Mr Schneider who accepts that there was a phone call in July 2015, although he denies he agreed that limb 1 would not be relied upon.

In my judgment the e-mail exchanges I have referred to in some detail above do not undermine the evidence of Mr Leahy to the extent necessary to dismiss the Application. The opposite is true. They support his evidence.

In conclusion given the consistent and continued flow of correspondence over a four-month period I find that the defences raised by Mr Leahy are not inherently implausible and raise a genuine and substantial dispute not suitable for determination in this court.

I shall set aside the Demand.

I invite counsel to agree an order.