KA-2024-000188 - [2025] EWHC 2869 (KB)

With the assistance of counsel, extensive Grounds of Appeal were drafted and filed. However, permission to appeal was only granted by Sir Stephen Stewart on Grounds 7 and 8 which concern Mr Asombang alone. That remained the position after an oral renewal hearing before Mr Justice Ritchie. These grounds have not been renumbered and continued to be referred to in the hearing before me by their original numbers; I take the same approach in this judgment.

The two grounds for which the Mr Asombnang has permission to appeal are, in summary, that the Judge was wrong:

The Respondents submit that it is incorrect to assert that the Court’s “material” finding of harassment was confined to the statutory demand and freezing order initiated by Mr Asombang. The Court was entitled to make “obiter” observations indicating that there was further conduct which, in law, would also amount to harassment of Mr Gottlieb. Such comments, it was said, are neither improper nor unusual.

The Respondents further contend that the Judge did not err in his application of CPR r.46.2 when determining the Appellants’ liability for costs. Mr Asombang was already a party to the proceedings, and accordingly, no non-party costs order was required or made. The Judge merely indicated, in the alternative, that he would have been minded to make such an order had it been necessary, but it was not, on the facts.