Dekel v Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3220 (Ch) (17 December 2025)

Dekel v Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3220 (Ch) (17 December 2025)

A stay is granted because the CLL UK Claim and the CLL BVI Claim are based on essentially the same facts and should be heard together to avoid waste of court resources, duplicative hearings, and procedural complexity. The prejudice to the claimant is limited to delay, which is outweighed by the interests of justice, efficient case management, and the need to avoid inconsistent findings and unnecessary costs. The uncertainty of the BVI appeals' timing does not justify refusing the stay.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3220 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Zvi Dekel; First Defendant: Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Sean Gaskell; Third Defendant: Newman George Leech; Fourth Defendant: RE Capital (Switzerland) SA; Fifth Defendant: CAF6 Luxembourg SARL; Sixth Defendant: Euro Sterling Facilities SARL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim (company Law) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related BVI Appeals
Outcome
Stay granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Derivative Actions, Case Management, Court Resources, Directors' Duties
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Stay of Proceedings Derivative Actions Case Management Court Resources Directors' Duties

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zvi Dekel

Claimant

Clerkenwell Lifestyle (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Sean Gaskell

Second Defendant

Newman George Leech

Third Defendant

RE Capital (Switzerland) SA

Fourth Defendant

CAF6 Luxembourg SARL

Fifth Defendant

Euro Sterling Facilities SARL

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim (company Law) / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related BVI Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of the CLL UK Claim pending the outcome of BVI appeals involving substantially the same facts and parties
  2. 2 Whether delay to the claimant constitutes sufficient prejudice to refuse a stay
  3. 3 Whether court resources and risk of inconsistent findings justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

A stay is granted because the CLL UK Claim and the CLL BVI Claim are based on essentially the same facts and should be heard together to avoid waste of court resources, duplicative hearings, and procedural complexity. The prejudice to the claimant is limited to delay, which is outweighed by the interests of justice, efficient case management, and the need to avoid inconsistent findings and unnecessary costs. The uncertainty of the BVI appeals' timing does not justify refusing the stay.

Court Disposition

Stay granted

Orders

  • The CLL UK Claim is stayed pending final determination of the BVI appeals and any cross appeals.
  • No directions for exchange of evidence at this stage.