HT-2025-000036 - [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC)

As mentioned above, these are Part 8 proceedings. Two points arise from this.

The first is that CPR Part 8 is only appropriate where a claimant “seek[s] the court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact.” Claims involving estoppel are generally not suitable for Part 8. In ING Bank NV v Ros Roca SA [2012] 1 WLR 472, the Court of Appeal explained at [77] that:

“In general Part 8 proceedings are wholly unsuitable for the trial of an issue of estoppel. Once such a claim is disputed, save in exceptional cases, the proceedings will cease to comply with CPR r 8.1(2)(a), since they will cease to be proceedings in which the parties do not seek the court’s decision only on questions which are unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact. A disputed claim of estoppel should be carefully pleaded.”

Secondly, VCL’s principal argument (the “Interim Valuation Date” point) was not pleaded in the Amended Details of Claim and emerged for the first time in Mr Bowling’s skeleton argument, served on the Friday before the hearing. I indicated to the parties that they should address me both on whether this new case should be allowed, and the merits of the case.

Counsel duly did so, and Mr Bowling applied to reamend the Details of Claim during the course of his submissions. Mr Frampton, at least to some extent, resisted this application, but fully engaged with the new case. It seems to me that it is appropriate to permit VCL to run this new case. It raises matters of law on the documents, and Gypcraft have had a full opportunity to deal with the case, including the submission of a supplemental skeleton. I therefore grant permission to VCL to make the proposed reamendments, on the usual terms as to costs.