QB-2022-000681 - [2025] EWHC 2744 (KB)

I will refer to this Order as the “Stacey J Order”.

No payments at all have been made by the Claimant in respect of this Order. As a consequence, the case management directions have had to be varied. The claim has been set down for trial in a window commencing on 5 May 2026 with a time estimate of 2 weeks. I have been told that the next procedural steps are as follows:

Expert reports on land/asset valuation are due to be exchanged on 31 October 2025;

Witness statements of fact are due to be exchanged on 14 November 2025; and

Expert reports on share valuation are due to be exchanged on 9 January 2026.

The hearing

For the purposes of the hearing of the applications the parties submitted an extensive bundle of witness and documentary evidence; a bundle containing the pleadings in the case; and a bundle of authorities. Each party filed skeleton arguments in advance of the hearing, and I heard oral submissions from Mr Maguire on behalf of the Claimant and from Ms Zoe O’Sullivan KC on behalf of the Defendants. I am grateful to them both for their focused and concise submissions.

The judgment

The judgment is divided into the following sections:

The applications

The claim

The Stacey J judgment

The judgment of Morris J and his consequential costs order

CPR 3.1.7

Should the security for costs order made by Stacey J be revoked pursuant to CPR 3.1.7?

Should the costs order made by Morris J be varied pursuant to CPR 3.1.7?

Should an unless order be made requiring payment of the outstanding security for costs?