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

Even if I had considered that any of the Grounds relied on by Mr Wheeler satisfied the tests in Rules 3.4(2)(a) or (b) or 24.3(a) I would not have struck out the claims which he challenged or any of them. As I have said, some of his complaints were capable of being addressed by an appropriate order for further particulars or permission to take other procedural steps. Even if any of his grounds established an abuse of process or that there was an abuse of process when one considered their cumulative effect, striking out all or any of them would not have been a proportionate step or in accordance with the overriding objective given the relatively undeveloped state of the claim in the US proceedings and given the risk that this would have left BISL without the ability to claim against Mr Wheeler the sums which it claims in the English proceedings.

Rather, I would have stayed the English proceedings until the conclusion of the US proceedings with liberty to apply if or when it became clear whether the damages claims in both sets of proceedings did or did not overlap. BISL offered this on 1 July 2025 but it was refused by Mr Wheeler, allegedly on the basis that the existence of the English proceedings was impairing his professional life because he was obliged to disclose the existence of these proceedings to investors. On exploring this at the hearing it transpired that it was a somewhat disingenuous point. The reality is that the US proceedings, in which Corinthia is a defendant, will inevitably be known to investors in any event. Striking out the Claim against Mr Wheeler or parts of it would make no real difference to their willingness to invest.