![[2025] EWHC 2107 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Claim No. CL-2024-000449
Before:
Peter MacDonald Eggers KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Between:
REGERA S.À R.L
Claimants
– and –
(1) PHILLIP EAN COHEN
(2) MARIA THERESE VALMORBIDA
(3) ZARA SIMON
Defendants
Mr Simon Atrill KCandMs Alexandra Whelan (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP) for the Claimants
Mr Hugh Sims KCand Ms Lucy Walker (instructed by The Khan Partnership LLP) for the First and Second Defendants
The Third Defendant was not represented
Hearing date: 7th April 2025
Followed by written submissions on 10th, 15th and 17th April 2025
JUDGMENT
Discussions leading towards the Facility Agreement 4
The terms of the Facility Agreement 11
The Claimant’s claim under the guarantees 18
Legal proceedings brought by the Claimant 19
The First and Second Defendants’ Defences 23
The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.2 26
The First and Second Defendants’ submissions 27
Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.2 36
(1) Are the First and Second Defendants parties to the Facility Agreement? 39
(2) Was notification of the appointment of Law Debenture sufficient? 41
(3) Is clause 40.2.2 an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? 43
(4) Enforceability under Consumer Credit legislation 47
The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.3 57
The First and Second Defendants’ submissions 60
Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.3 68
Do the First and Second Defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim? 68
Was the application made promptly? 71
The exercise of discretion under CPR rule 13.3 77
- Heading
- Introduction
- Discussions leading towards the Facility Agreement
- The terms of the Facility Agreement
- The Claimant’s claim under the guarantees
- Legal proceedings brought by the Claimant
- The First and Second Defendants’ Defences
- Entry of Default Judgments
- The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.2
- The First and Second Defendants’ submissions
- The Claimant’s submissions
- Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.2
- Are the First and Second Defendants parties to the Facility Agreement?
- Was notification of the appointment of Law Debenture sufficient?
- Is clause 40.2.2 an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ?
- Enforceability under Consumer Credit legislation
- Conclusion
- The Application to set aside the Default Judgments under CPR rule 13.3
- The First and Second Defendants’ submissions
- The Claimant’s submissions
- Determination of the application under CPR rule 13.3
- Do the First and Second Defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim?
- Was the application made promptly?
- The exercise of discretion under CPR rule 13.3
- The Claimant’s application for a conditional order
- Conclusions