CR-2022-BRS-000101 - [2025] EWHC 2291 (Ch)
Chancery Division of the High Court

CR-2022-BRS-000101 - [2025] EWHC 2291 (Ch)

Fecha: 10-Sep-2025

Conclusions

Conclusion

179.

Accordingly, I will make an order refusing permission to amend the petition, unless by 4 pm on Friday 26 September 2025 a further draft petition is filed and served sufficiently attributing the conduct alleged in the “lack of specificity” section to be unfairly prejudicial to the petitioners’ interests to one or more in particular of the active respondents. There must be sufficient specificity for the active respondents to be able to plead to the petition. Alleging that a particular act or omission is to be attributed to “A and/or B and/or C and/or D and/ or E” will simply not do.

180.

If such a draft petition be so served (taking account of the other draft allegations which I have indicated that I would not permit), then I will consider on paper whether the draft petition should be allowed (including the joinder of In-Touch), taking into account any written submissions on it filed and served by the respondents by 4 pm on 3 October 2025, and any reply submissions filed and served by the petitioners by 4 pm on 10 October 2025. I should be grateful for a minute of order, preferably agreed, to give effect to this judgment.