Candy Ventures SARL v Aaqua BV & Ors

Candy Ventures SARL v Aaqua BV & Ors

The Part 20 Claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to very significant and continued breaches of court orders, including failure to pay costs and 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 found that lack of funds was not a good reason for non-compliance, and there was no realistic prospect that further time would result in compliance. The court did not find the claim to be obviously unwinnable for the purposes of CPR 3.4(2)(a) or summary judgment, but the procedural breaches justified strike out.

Parties
Claimant / Part 20 Defendant: Candy Ventures SARL; Part 20 Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: AAQUA BV; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Aaquaverse Pte Ltd; Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Robert Bonnier; Part 20 Claimant: FL Hoes Ventures BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Civil / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment on Part 20 Claim
Outcome
Part 20 Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Relief From Sanctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Damages Inquiry, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Abuse of Process Relief From Sanctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Damages Inquiry +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 7 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

Aaquaverse Pte Ltd

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Robert Bonnier

Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

FL Hoes Ventures BV

Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Civil / 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 failure to comply with 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, including failure to pay costs and 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 found that lack of funds was not a good reason for non-compliance, and there was no realistic prospect that further time would result in compliance. The court did not find the claim to be obviously unwinnable for the purposes of CPR 3.4(2)(a) or summary judgment, but the procedural breaches justified strike out.

Court Disposition

Part 20 Claim struck out

Orders

  • The Part 20 Claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(c).
  • The parties are invited to agree the terms of an order reflecting this decision.