PT 2023 000474 - [2025] EWHC 2397 (Ch)

The claimant is the administrator and holder of the G.G.F. Deposit Indemnity Fund (“the fund”), held in accordance with the GGF Deposit Indemnity Fund Rules (“the rules”). The rules provide that any surplus in the fund belongs to the members of the fund and is held in proportion to their contributions over the lifetime of the fund. The claimant considers that it holds these funds as trustee.

At a board meeting on 30 March 2020 the claimant resolved to close the fund to new business, with effect from 1 April 2020. The fund is in the process of being wound up and the surplus funds need to be distributed to the members of the fund in accordance with the rules. However, there is some ambiguity and gaps in the rules which mean that the claimant seeks a determination from the court as to the correct interpretation of the rules so that it can distribute surplus funds, and protect its position as trustee. The claim is brought under CPR Part 64.2(a). The assets of the fund are approximately £4 million, before costs.

The claim was initially issued against three defendants, all of whom potentially stood to benefit from the distribution of the fund. All agreed to be made defendants for the purposes of representing themselves and certain classes of those who might potentially participate in any distribution.

The first defendant was removed as a party by order dated 7 February 2024. It had been placed into administration on 30 October 2023 and had assigned its rights (if any) to participate in the distribution of the fund to the second defendant.

The second defendant is a founding member of the Glass and Glazing Federation (Footnote: ¹) (“the federation”) and the fund. Due to its size and the duration of its membership it is one of the two largest fund members, by way of contributions. Since the inception of the fund it is estimated that the second defendant has paid in approximately £2.5 million.

Everest Ltd was also a founding member and the other largest fund member, by contributions. On 8 June 2020 Everest Ltd went into administration. Its name was changed to E Realisations 2020 Ltd, the third defendant. This was a prepacked administration and a new company bought out Everest’s business.

At the directions hearing on 7 February 2024 Master Clark made a series of representation orders under CPR 19.9(2)(d)(ii). Given the difficulty in finding additional defendants and for reasons of proportionality, “interests-based” representation orders were made, including that the claimant represent certain classes of potential beneficiaries. It was also ordered that potential beneficiaries, of whom there are 127 (Footnote: ²), be served with the claim and therefore given an opportunity to apply to be joined as a party. They have been duly served but none have applied to be joined as a party, or intimated that they would wish to be joined.

The issues have been grouped together into three broad categories: insolvency, missed payments, and customer claims. All parties have adopted positions for the insolvency and missed payments groups of issues, and where appropriate they have adopted opposing positions to enable the fullest possible arguments to be presented to the court. The claimant and the second defendant have taken opposing positions in respect of the customer claims.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the issues identified and agreed by the parties have been properly tested before the court. I am extremely grateful to counsel for rigorously examining opposing arguments on the issues, both in their detailed skeleton arguments and as supplemented in their oral submissions.