![[2025] EWHC 2746 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
On 7th August 2025, I handed down judgment allowing the First Defendant’s application contesting the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to CPR rule 11(1) in respect of the Claimants’ claim against it (“the Judgment”).
When the draft of the Judgment was circulated to the parties on 31st July 2025, I indicated to the parties that “Consequential issues will be dealt with on paper, unless either party requests an oral hearing”.
A number of consequential issues are in dispute between the parties resulting from that decision, in particular concerning (1) the costs of the application, (2) the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal, and (3) the timing of the filing of an Appellant’s Notice.
Neither party has requested an oral hearing. The parties, by their solicitors, have exchanged written submissions as follows:
Sach Solicitors on behalf of the First Defendant filed written submissions by email dated 15th September 2025, 24th September 2025 and 13th October 2025.
Campbell Johnston Clark on behalf of the Claimant filed written submissions by email dated 16th September 2025, 30th September 2025 and 13th October 2025.
I am grateful for these helpful written submissions.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Costs
- Application for permission to appeal
- Whether the application for permission to appeal has been made out of time
- Do the Claimant’s grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success?
- Conclusion on the application for permission to appeal
- The time for the filing of the Appellant’s Notice
- Conclusions