![QB-2020-004171 - [2025] EWHC 2773 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
QB-2020-004171 - [2025] EWHC 2773 (KB)
Fecha: 27-Oct-2025
V Other matters
V Other matters
Following the Refusal, the Claimants paid third parties to brew the beer previously brewed at the Premises, which was then sold by the brewing business (it is unclear whether it was sold by the Claimants/LCFP/LFB or another third party to whom LFCP’s assets were sold). In addition, the other aspects of the business (for example tours of the Premises) continued to be operated.
Based on information provided, in response to the Defendant’s request of 14 March 2022, by the Claimants on 23 May 2022:
In February 2016 the assets of LFCP were sold to companies (understood to be owned by C1’s father) for a sum of £120,260.
In August 2016 assets said to be owed by LFB were sold to ‘LF Brewery Limited’ for £151,688.15. LF Brewery Limited appears to be a connected party, possibly owned by C1’s father, but its exact ownership has not been clarified.
On 5 April 2016, LFCP went into administration with all of LFCP’s tangible assets having been sold to connected party purchasers on 1 February 2016 (understood to be controlled by C1’s father). In 2017, the Defendant has stated that it is understood that the brewery business was sold to Carlsberg for around £4 million with initial consideration of about £1.4 million. It is not apparent why there was such a large difference between the amount paid by the connected party to the liquidator and the amount paid to the connected party shortly thereafter. The Claimants have been asked to confirm the position, but it is not known whether they have done so.
On October 2017 LFCP entered into liquidation. HMRC was its largest creditor. The liquidator recovered £157,927.26 plus £31,585.45 VAT (£189,512.71 total) in respect of the business/goodwill (in addition to the £120,260 which were outstanding in respect of the assets transferred in February 2016) following the compromise of a dispute in June 2017. The Defendant’s record indicates that it received £59,355.37 at a rate of 4.17p in the pound, against a claim of approximately £1.3million.
- Heading
- MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN
- II Summary of facts
- III The search warrant, refusal of Fourth Application and C1’s arrest
- IV The criminal proceedings
- V Other matters
- VI Summary judgment/strike out: procedural law
- VII Malicious prosecution: the law
- VIII Malicious prosecution: applying the law as to who is the prosecutor to the facts
- IX Reasonable and probable cause: the law
- X Reasonable and probable cause: applying the law to the facts
- XI Malice: the law
- XII Malice – applying the law to the facts
- XIV The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant: the law
- XIV Malicious procurement of a warrant: the respective cases
- XV Malicious procurement of a warrant: applying the law to the facts
- XVI The tort of misfeasance in public office: the law
- XVII The First Misfeasance Claim based on procurement of search warrant
- XVIII The Second Misfeasance Claim based on the brewing licence applications
- XIX The claims in negligence
- XX Negligence: the law
- XXI Negligence: a pplying the law to the facts
- XXII Limitation
- XXIII The assignment
- Conclusions