KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)
Fecha: 22-Sep-2025
Introduction
Introduction
This is an application by the Defendant, Mr Adam Wheeler, to strike out the Claim in whole or alternatively in part pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b), or alternatively for “reverse summary judgment” pursuant to CPR Rule 24.2(a) (“the Application”). The Application was made on 17 June 2025 and the hearing of it was expedited pursuant to a decision of listings on 16 July 2025. By the end of the hearing before me, Mr Oudkerk KC said that the matter was no longer urgent as the issues between the parties had narrowed.
The Claim arises out of a “team move” from Barings to Corinthia Global Management Limited (“Corinthia”) which is alleged to have been orchestrated by Mr Wheeler and others in 2023/2024. The Claimant (“BISL”) contends that in so doing he acted in breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and it claims various financial remedies on these bases.
The Application does not challenge any of the causes of action pleaded by BISL. Rather, its focus is on the remedies which are claimed. In broad terms, Mr Oudkerk’s case was that BISL’s claim is abusive because it has adopted fundamentally inconsistent positions both in the context of the present proceedings (“the English proceedings”) and as between these proceedings and proceedings in the United States of America which have been brought by Barings LLC against Corinthia and two US based organisers of the same team move (“the US proceedings”). He also argues that BISL has not suffered the loss which it claims in damages, and that the other remedies claimed are bound to fail.
- 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