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

By the time that that hearing arrived, two important things had happened. The first is that the petitioners, previously acting in person, had instructed counsel by direct access, who also has the right to conduct litigation, and he appeared at that hearing on their behalf. The second thing is that counsel for the petitioners had sensibly sought, and obtained, instructions completely to redraft the petition. A fresh application was therefore issued, dated 1 April 2025, for permission to re-amend the petition in the form (dated 31 March 2025) attached to the notice. This in turn had two consequences. The first consequence was that the application of the petitioners of 28 October 2024 to amend their petition in the terms annexed was superseded. The second consequence was that the application of the respondents to strike out was aiming at the wrong target. Neither of those two applications was therefore proceeded with. However, at the hearing, after argument, I ordered the petitioners to pay the active respondents’ costs of both of them, on the standard basis, and also to make a payment on account of those costs (see [2025] EWHC 1211 (Ch)).

In fact, the 31 March version of the draft re-amended petition has not survived either. After the active respondents served their skeleton argument dated 6 May 2025, the petitioners’ counsel reconsidered his draft, and produced a fresh one, dated 9 May 2025 (though actually completed on 10 May). It was this draft that he sought to rely on at the hearing on 13 May. So, what was debated at the hearing was a new application by the petitioners for permission to re-amend their petition in the form of the draft dated 9 May 2025, the application to strike out the earlier draft amended petition having been overtaken. As I said at the time, if the new draft re-amended petition was demurrable, then I would not give permission for it, and the petition would simply fail. But if it was not, then I would go on to consider whether and if so on what terms I would give permission.