CL-2024-000271 - [2025] EWHC 2162 (Comm)

As regards the factual matrix behind the Second DoA, I take the view that the relevant parties, in this regard, are the assignor (i.e. (TCR (acting by its Special Managers and the Official Receiver)). and the Claimant. There is no evidence as to the information available or reasonably available to the assignor, and so no material in relation to the factual matrix. This would be enough to dispose of the point. However, if the information relied on by the Third Defendant was available to both parties to the assignment, it would, in my view, militate against the Third Defendant’s contention. That is because the reason why it is said that the First DoA was deficient was because the assignor did not have title to the relevant claims and because the definition of “Proposed Claims” did not encompass the Stage II claims concerning the TCI share purchase. There is no question, as I understand it, that the assignor under the Second DoA did have such title. Thus, the second DoA did indeed cure the very problem identified in relation to the First DoA.

I have concluded that the wording of the Second DoA is indeed broad enough (or arguably so) to assign the claims which the Claimant pleads. The use of the words “in relation to” is, in general, intended to connote a broad level of connection.

Although the DoA talks in terms of the claims in relation to the GMI sale and purchase, I am satisfied that this, at least arguably, includes the claims now sued upon by the Claimant, which relates to TCR’s claims in relation to the acquisition of GMI by TCI which TCR funded.

I think that it is irrelevant that there may be no intention to enter into a further assignment. The question is simply whether the current DoA includes the claims now made, and for the reasons set out above, I have concluded that it (at least arguably) does.