Further adjournment
Further adjournment
On 12 February 2025, the active respondents applied for an adjournment of the hearing listed for 17 February 2025. This was based on the fact that they had not yet issued their application to strike out the petition. I acceded to the application, on the basis that there was no point in dealing with the petitioners’ application to amend their petition and then on a subsequent occasion dealing with an application to strike out, because they would almost certainly overlap, and the preparation of the claim for trial could not realistically be advanced until the strike-out application was determined. Accordingly, I set a timetable for issue and service of the application to strike out and evidence in support, and for evidence in reply. In the event, the strike-out application was issued on 24 February 2025, evidence was duly filed, and the hearing of both applications was listed over two days, 13 and 14 May 2025.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background and nature of the claims
- The history of the litigation
- Interim injunction application
- Pre-trial review
- The abortive trial and aftermath
- The restoration of In-Touch
- Further adjournment
- The hearing on 13-14 May 2025
- The question of standing
- Procedural rules
- Relevant caselaw
- The draft re-amended petition
- Brief summary
- The active respondents’ objections
- Standing for the purposes of unfair prejudice petitions
- Caselaw on equitable title
- Scope of the section 994 jurisdiction
- Discussion
- Claims to shares in equity
- Claims outside scope of petition
- Lack of clarity as to basis of allegation
- Vagueness and lack of clarity as to the pleading itself
- Lack of specificity in pleading attribution of conduct
- Inadequate pleading
- Absence of a necessary party
- Conclusion on particular objections
- Opportunity to re-amend?
- Conclusions
![CR-2022-BRS-000101 - [2025] EWHC 2291 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)