KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)
Fecha: 22-Sep-2025
Conclusions
Conclusion
I therefore dismiss the Application for the reasons given above.
As I have noted, BISL offered to agree to a stay of the Claim as a way of resolving the Application although, when this was rejected by Mr Wheeler, their position was that they were not positively advocating it. They were advocating the dismissal of the Application. For his part, Mr Wheeler suggested a stay as an alternative in the event that I was not prepared to strike out or dismiss the Claim.
My provisional view is that it is likely to be useful for Mr Wheeler to plead his case and for the Claim to proceed to the close of pleadings. This will enable the issues in relation to the claims against him to be identified and may ultimately assist settlement. However, I am willing to give the parties an opportunity to agree a position or, absent agreement, to make submissions as to whether there should be a stay and, if so, the terms of any stay.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The pleaded claim
- BISL’s reaction to the resignations of Mr Wheeler and the EMEA GPF employees
- The US proceedings
- The legal framework
- The “no reasonable grounds” basis for striking out
- The need for a proportionate approach
- The abuse of process ground for striking out
- Waiver by election
- Part 24
- The grounds on which Mr Wheeler seeks summary disposal
- Ground 1: internal inconsistency in the context of the BISL claim
- Discussion
- Ground 2: inconsistency between the US Proceedings and the Claim
- Discussion
- Ground 3: BISL did not incur the loss in any event
- Discussion
- Ground 4 – quantum claim misconceived?
- Discussion
- Ground 5: equitable claims
- Equitable compensation relief
- The claim for an account of profits
- No constructive trust
- No forfeiture of bonuses
- Ground 6: “inchoate ‘claw back’ claim”
- In any event…
- Conclusions