Candy Ventures Sarl v Aaqua BV & Ors [2026] EWHC 974 (Comm) (27 April 2026)

Candy Ventures Sarl v Aaqua BV & Ors [2026] EWHC 974 (Comm) (27 April 2026)

The Part 20 Claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to very significant and continued breaches of court orders by the Part 20 Claimants, including failure to pay costs and failure to provide disclosure, with no good reason for non-compliance. The breaches were serious, persistent, and prejudicial, and the sanction of strike out was proportionate. The court rejected lack of funds as a justification and found no basis to grant further indulgence. The application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and for summary judgment was not granted, as the claim was not obviously unwinnable at this stage, but the procedural breaches alone justified strike out.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 974 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant / Part 20 Defendant: Candy Ventures SARL; Part 20 Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant (original): AAQUA BV; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Aaquaverse Pte Ltd; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Robert Bonnier; Part 20 Claimant (substituted for AAQUA Bv): FL Hoes Ventures BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings With Part 20 Claim (damages Inquiry) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Part 20 Claim
Outcome
Part 20 Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for serious and continued breaches of court orders.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Relief From Sanctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Freezing Orders, Damages Inquiry
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Relief From Sanctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Freezing Orders +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Candy Ventures SARL

Claimant / Part 20 Defendant

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Part 20 Defendant

AAQUA BV

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant (original)

Aaquaverse Pte Ltd

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Robert Bonnier

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

FL Hoes Ventures BV

Part 20 Claimant (substituted for AAQUA Bv)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings With Part 20 Claim (damages Inquiry) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Part 20 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 Claim should be struck out for serious and continued breaches of court orders under CPR 3.4(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the Part 20 Claim discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the Part 20 Claim is an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 20 Claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to very significant and continued breaches of court orders by the Part 20 Claimants, including failure to pay costs and failure to provide disclosure, with no good reason for non-compliance. The breaches were serious, persistent, and prejudicial, and the sanction of strike out was proportionate. The court rejected lack of funds as a justification and found no basis to grant further indulgence. The application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and for summary judgment was not granted, as the claim was not obviously unwinnable at this stage, but the procedural breaches alone justified strike out.

Court Disposition

Part 20 Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for serious and continued breaches of court orders.

Orders

  • Order striking out the Part 20 Claim.
  • Parties invited to agree terms of order reflecting the decision.