BL-2024-000734 - [2025] EWHC 2166 (Ch)

Fecha: 18-Ago-2025

Conclusions

Conclusions

104.

The Claimants do not have an arguable case that

the charge was not fully assigned to Niven as chargee;

ii)

their failure to respond to the chargee’s request for information under the charge was not a breach of their obligations under the charge documentation, or that that failure did not constitute an event of default;

iii)

the request for information, the consequent exercise of the right to accelerate, or the consequent appointment of an administrator, was invalid; or that

iv)

the powers exercised (separately or collectively) were exercised for an improper purpose so as to invalidate them.

I therefore order that the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim be struck out on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and the Claimants have no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

Heading
Mr Simon Gleeson
The Facts
The Principles Applicable to a Summary Judgment Application
Did Niven Ever Have the Rights it Purported to Exercise?
Was the Benefit of the Guarantee and Debenture Assigned to Niven?
Were the Information Obligations confined to certain specific types of assets?
Was there in fact an Event of Default?
Did the Chargee exercise his Powers under the Charge Reasonably and for a Proper Purpose?
Was the power used for an improper purpose?
Was there an implied “Braganza” term requiring good faith
Estoppel
Conclusions