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 a realistic prospect of success on appeal because they did not raise impecuniosity at the time of the original interim payment order, did not appeal that order, and failed to provide full and frank disclosure. The Master was entitled to exercise his discretion to make the unless order for £80,000, and the order was not a disguised security for costs circumventing CPR 25. The Defendants' defence was found to be shadowy, and the case management decision was within the proper exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2756
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 / Permission to Appeal Application in the High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Impecuniosity, Security for Costs, Case Management Discretion, Duress, Loan Agreements, Personal Guarantees
Civil Procedure Contract Law Interim Payments Impecuniosity Security for Costs Case Management Discretion Duress Loan Agreements +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
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 / Permission to Appeal Application in the High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in ordering payment of £80,000 as an unless order under CPR 3
  2. 2 Whether the order was a disguised security for costs circumventing CPR 25
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants had established impecuniosity sufficient to resist the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to establish a realistic prospect of success on appeal because they did not raise impecuniosity at the time of the original interim payment order, did not appeal that order, and failed to provide full and frank disclosure. The Master was entitled to exercise his discretion to make the unless order for £80,000, and the order was not a disguised security for costs circumventing CPR 25. The Defendants' defence was found to be shadowy, and the case management decision was within the proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay Claimant/Respondent's costs of the permission hearing, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.