Terna Energy Trading doo v Revolut Ltd

Terna Energy Trading doo v Revolut Ltd

The court had jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal because setting a timetable for written submissions amounted to a formal adjournment of the hand-down hearing. There was a real prospect of success on both grounds of appeal due to conflicting authorities on the issues of enrichment and 'at the expense of'. The application for an extension of time for filing the appellant’s notice was refused as counsel’s unavailability was not a good reason. The listing of a CCMC was made conditional on whether an appellant’s notice was filed by 3 July 2024.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Terna Energy Trading doo; Defendant/applicant: Revolut Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Consequential Applications Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted; extension of time for appellant’s notice refused; conditional listing of CCMC; costs order made.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Appeal, Costs, Extension of Time, Case Management
Civil Procedure Banking Law Restitution Summary Judgment Strike Out Permission to Appeal Costs Extension of Time +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terna Energy Trading doo

Claimant/respondent

Revolut Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Consequential Applications Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal after remote hand-down without formal adjournment
  2. 2 Whether there is a real prospect of success on appeal regarding enrichment and 'at the expense of' in restitution claims
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for filing an appellant’s notice should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal because setting a timetable for written submissions amounted to a formal adjournment of the hand-down hearing. There was a real prospect of success on both grounds of appeal due to conflicting authorities on the issues of enrichment and 'at the expense of'. The application for an extension of time for filing the appellant’s notice was refused as counsel’s unavailability was not a good reason. The listing of a CCMC was made conditional on whether an appellant’s notice was filed by 3 July 2024.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted; extension of time for appellant’s notice refused; conditional listing of CCMC; costs order made.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondent’s costs of and occasioned by the application, agreed at £50,000, within 14 days.
  • Permission to appeal granted on both grounds.