KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)

Mr Oudkerk’s contention under this heading was that BISL did not pay the salary and bonuses which are the subject of the Claim or, if it did, it recharged these costs given that it is a service company. It therefore did not suffer any loss.

Given that this was effectively an argument that the claim for damages/equitable compensation was bound to fail, and given that the point turns on evidence, it seems to me that this was effectively a “no real prospect of success” argument under Part 24. But I considered the point under the abuse of process limb of Rule 3.4(2) as well on the basis that Mr Oudkerk was contending that the fact that BISL did not suffer any loss is further evidence of the abusive nature of the Claim.