UTLC LC-2022-000705 - [2023] UKUT 141 (LC)

The Judge was wrong to conclude that the Appellant was bound by the Payment Agreement and that it was estopped from denying that it had authorised the Payment Agreement in circumstances where that document had been forged (“Ground 1”).

The Judge was wrong to conclude that the effect of Section 44(5) of the Companies Act 2006 was to deem that the Payment Agreement had been validly executed in circumstances where that document had been forged (“Ground 2”).

The Judge was wrong to conclude that the Charge was a Disposal (“Ground 3”).

The Judge was wrong to conclude that the Payment Agreement did not require the removal of the Restriction five years after the Payment Agreement was entered into (“Ground 4”).