[2025] EWHC 2316 (Ch)

Fecha: 10-Sep-2025

Conclusions

CONCLUSION

144.

In my view, HH Judge Davis-White KC has assisted the parties by directing a trial of the Preliminary Issue. With my reasoned findings above, I have been able to provide the parties with authoritative guidance that:

the Former Liquidators are not protected by clause 7 of the LoEs and clause 13.2.3;

ii)

the remainder of the Begbies Defendants may be protected by these provisions if they were involved in providing services (including services provided after the appointment of the Former Liquidators), subject to their being able to show that what they were doing was within the scope of the services provided under the LoEs (following the interpretation that I have given);

iii)

these provisions are wide enough to cover vicarious liability but whether or not they are effective in doing so may depend on basis on which it is established (if it is) that vicarious liability applies, and that argument is outside the scope of this judgment.

145.

Whilst there is still much to determine within this action, I hope that the clarity afforded by this judgment might assist the parties in reaching a negotiated solution.