Square Developments Richmond Ltd v Blakebrough & Ors [2021] EWHC 2756 (QB) (15 October 2021)

Square Developments Richmond Ltd v Blakebrough & Ors [2021] EWHC 2756 (QB) (15 October 2021)

The Defendants failed to establish impecuniosity with full and frank disclosure, did not appeal the original interim payment orders, and only raised impecuniosity after enforcement was sought. The Master was entitled to make the unless order and exercise discretion as he did. No realistic prospect of success on appeal was shown.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2756 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Square Developments Richmond Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Simon Blakebrough; Defendant/appellant: Roquebrook Residential Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Roquebrook Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From a Case Management/interim Payment Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Impecuniosity, Security for Costs, Case Management, Duress, Sham Transactions, Personal Guarantees
Civil Procedure Contract Law Interim Payments Impecuniosity Security for Costs Case Management Duress Sham Transactions +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Square Developments Richmond Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Simon Blakebrough

Defendant/appellant

Roquebrook Residential Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Roquebrook Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From a Case Management/interim Payment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in making an unless order requiring payment of £80,000 as a condition for defence to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the order was in substance a security for costs order circumventing CPR 25
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants had established impecuniosity sufficient to avoid the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to establish impecuniosity with full and frank disclosure, did not appeal the original interim payment orders, and only raised impecuniosity after enforcement was sought. The Master was entitled to make the unless order and exercise discretion as he did. No realistic prospect of success on appeal was shown.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • First and second Defendants to pay Claimant/Respondent's costs of the permission hearing, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed