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

In November 2020 Ms Nicholas served a statutory demand under section 123(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of sums then due under the settlement agreement.

In April 2021 Tates commenced proceedings in the Staines County Court (Claim No. H49YX780) against Ms Nicholas, alleging breach of contractual warranty, and seeking repayment of the £49,268.70 it had so far paid out. In June 2021 Ms Nicholas filed a Defence and Counterclaim seeking payment of the £25,000 which remained unpaid.

In September and October 2021 there were oral and written communications between Mr Asombang and Mr Gottlieb regarding the dispute between Tates and Ms Nicholas. Mr Gottlieb considered these, and subsequent exchanges, to be harassment by Mr Asombang, carried out with the agreement of Ms Nicholas (and so eventually pleaded as an unlawful means conspiracy in the subsequent harassment action – see further below).

On 9 September 2021 Ms Nicholas obtained an ex-parte freezing injunction against Tates before Mrs Justice Bacon, freezing assets up to £100,000. The order records that Mr Asombang had attended court and given an undertaking to guarantee Ms Nicholas’ cross undertaking in damages. She was required to file an affidavit of his means within 24 hours. An affidavit, sworn by Mr Asombang was filed, dated 13 September 2021.

On 16 September 2021 Mr Justice Meade made an order that the freezing injunction had ceased to have effect upon a solicitor’s undertaking having been given. He also transferred the matter to the County Court to be consolidated with the existing claim. The injunction was subsequently discharged by order of Her Honour Judge George on 11 January 2022. The judgment which accompanied that order includes a finding that the cross undertaking was wholly inadequate given non-disclosure of Mr Asombang’s financial background and previous bankruptcy as well as uncertainty over the value attributed to one of his companies.

In November 2021 Mr Gottlieb and Tates commenced a claim against Ms Nicholas and Mr Asombang in the High Court (Claim No. QB-2021-004088) seeking damages and an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The damages sought were limited to £15,000. Mr Nicholas and Mr Asombang filed defences in that High Court Claim in December 2021, denying harassment and unlawful conspiracy.

The particulars of harassment cover a period commencing in October 2020 and give details of the actions of Mr Asombang which are said to amount to a course of conduct within section 1 and 3 of the 1997 Act. They do not make any reference to the statutory demand or the freezing injunction.

Thus, there were two claims, the first in the County Court for breach of warranty, to which the Defendant was Ms Nicholas and the second a High Court Claim, based upon allegations of harassment and conspiracy, to which both Mr Asombang and Ms Nicholas were Defendants.

On 10 November 2021 Mr Gottlieb and Tates obtained an interim injunction in the High Court proceedings by order of Mrs Justice Collins Rice. The order prohibited Mr Asombang and Ms Nicholas from communicating with Tates or Mr Gottlieb or contacting any person who was a customer of Tates in connection with the matters which were the subject of the County Court claim. Tates and Mr Gottlieb subsequently contended that this prohibition applied to any employees or former employees of Tates who might be witnesses in the Staines County Court proceedings.

Mr Asombang and Ms Nicholas filed evidence in December 2021 opposing the injunction, but it was continued at the Return Date hearing, on 17 January 2022, by Mr Justice Nicklin.

In June 2022 Tates obtained permission to amend the Particulars of Claim in the County Court proceedings to add further allegations and claims. The amended claim sought damages or compensation (beyond repayment of the sums paid under the settlement agreement) for the alleged breaches of duty in the additional sum of £60,650.74. Ms Nicholas filed an amended defence in October 2022. In April 2023 Tates obtained permission to further re-amend the Particulars of Claim to add further allegations and claims, such that the additional damages (beyond reimbursement of the sums paid under the settlement agreement) totalled £124,535.74. Ms Nicholas filed her re-amended defence and counterclaim on 30 May 2023.

It appears that Mr Gottlieb and Tates did not progress the High Court proceedings. In July 2023 Mr Justice Nicklin ordered them to explain why no steps had been taken and listed a Case Management hearing. He sought an explanation as to why separate proceedings had been commenced in the High Court when there were already proceedings in the County Court at Staines without making that clear to the High Court. He concluded subsequently that this was an abuse of process.

At a Case Management Hearing on 3 November 2023 Mr Justice Nicklin ordered that the High Court claim be transferred to the County Court at Staines and “...upon receipt for consideration by that court of consolidation of the claim with the Staines Action”.

By Order of Her Honour Judge George in the Staines County Court, dated 21 November 2023, both claims were to be “listed together” for a Case Management hearing preferably in front of her or another civil circuit judge. In fact, the matter came back before a Recorder.

By Order of Recorder Bedingfield, dated 11 December 2023, the two sets of proceedings were to be “joined and case manged together under Claim No number H49YX780.” There was no express order for consolidation and no order for consolidated statements of case or amendment of the parties to each separate claim. Mr Asombang has never been added as a defendant to the County Court claim. The requirement for the litigation to proceed under the County Court case number was, on this basis, administrative in nature.