Claim No: IP-2022-000077 - [2024] EWHC 234 (IPEC)

Before turning to the law and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is convenient to summarise the facts said by the First Defendant to support the applications in respect of each of the proposed new parties. The First Defendant’s evidence was provided in the form of a witness statement given by the First Defendant’s solicitor together with various documents exhibited to that witness statement.

The proposed Fourth Party is Mr Kristo Käärmann. He is the co-founder and current CEO of the Claimant and has been a director of the Claimant since 31 March 2010. The First Defendant asserts that he was involved in the Claimant’s decision to commence trading under the WISE name and/or sign in February 2021. The First Defendant relies particularly on a statement in correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitors that Mr Käärmann “was involved in the decision to re-brand”.

The proposed Fifth Party, Mr Taavet Hinrikus, is the other co-founder of the Claimant. He was Chairman and director between 8 November 2011 and 18 June 2021. The First Defendant says that he was also involved in the Claimant’s decision to rebrand and rely particularly on correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitors stating that Mr Hinrikus “had a limited involvement in the decision to re-brand”.

The Proposed Sixth Party, Mr Dean Nash, was General Counsel and Secretary of the Claimant between 15 October 2020 and 2 December 2021. He was a director of the Claimant between 19 September 2021 and 2 December 2021. The First Defendant relies on evidence said to establish that Mr Nash was involved in the Claimant’s rebrand in February 2021. This supporting evidence comprised a press release from Mr Nash’s current employer explaining Mr Nash’s background; two articles from the legal press; and comments by Mr Nash on LinkedIn.

The common evidence on behalf of all the proposed new Defendants was given by the Claimant’s solicitor. That evidence focusses on the potential impact and cost benefit implications of joining the proposed new parties to the litigation.

Mr Nash provided a separate witness statement describing his role with the Claimant in more detail than was apparent from the public material on which the First Defendant relied. Aspects of that evidence are discussed as far as necessary below.

Mr Nash’s evidence was that, from the date on which he began working for the Claimant until the rebrand took effect in February 2021 (and the date of the name change resolution on 25 June 2021), his role was that of General Counsel acting in a legal advisory capacity and reporting to the Chief Financial Officer. He confirms that he was a director between 19 September 2021 and 2 December 2021 but states that his role was a formality to enable the Claimant to comply with financial regulation requirements. Mr Nash also explains that the period during which he was a director of the Claimant (lasting just over two months) was after the rebrand to Wise went live. Mr Nash left the Wise group on 7 January 2022.