Helius Media Ltd v Like Futures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 138 (KB) (27 January 2025)

Helius Media Ltd v Like Futures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 138 (KB) (27 January 2025)

There was no arguable error of law or procedure in the conduct of the trial; the judge acted within his discretion in managing the proceedings, admitting evidence, and refusing adjournments. The defendants' non-participation was their own choice, and the guarantee was valid and enforceable. No grounds for appeal were established.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 138 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Helius Media Limited; Defendant/appellant: Like Futures Limited (in liquidation); Defendant/appellant: Ryan Lewis Davies; Defendant/appellant: Ian Robert Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal Refused After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Guarantee and Indemnity, Fair Trial (article 6 Echr), Adjournment Applications, Procedural Fairness, Enforcement of Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Insolvency Guarantee and Indemnity Fair Trial (article 6 Echr) Adjournment Applications Procedural Fairness Enforcement of Settlement Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helius Media Limited

Claimant/respondent

Like Futures Limited (in liquidation)

Defendant/appellant

Ryan Lewis Davies

Defendant/appellant

Ian Robert Davies

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal Refused After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial was unfair and contrary to Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing adjournment applications
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee was valid and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable error of law or procedure in the conduct of the trial; the judge acted within his discretion in managing the proceedings, admitting evidence, and refusing adjournments. The defendants' non-participation was their own choice, and the guarantee was valid and enforceable. No grounds for appeal were established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Application for stay of order dismissed