Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Invt. Ltd v Bugsby Property LLC & Anor [2023] EWHC 2755 (Comm) (03 November 2023)

Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Invt. Ltd v Bugsby Property LLC & Anor [2023] EWHC 2755 (Comm) (03 November 2023)

Bugsby failed to establish a good arguable case that the claimed loss would be suffered as a consequence of the injunctions; the loss was speculative and not supported by solid, credible evidence. Even if necessary, Bugsby did not show a good arguable case that the funders would not meet their undertakings, given their financial strength and reputational risk.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2755 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Investment Limited; Claimant: Therium Capital Management Limited; Defendant: Bugsby Property LLC; Defendant: Candey Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Fortification of Cross Undertakings in Damages
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Litigation Funding, Fortification of Undertakings
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Injunctions Cross Undertakings in Damages Litigation Funding Fortification of Undertakings

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Investment Limited

Claimant

Therium Capital Management Limited

Claimant

Bugsby Property LLC

Defendant

Candey Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Fortification of Cross Undertakings in Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bugsby Property LLC has a good arguable case that it will suffer loss as a result of the injunctions and is entitled to fortification of the cross-undertakings in damages
  2. 2 Whether Omni Bridgeway and Therium are 'good for' their respective undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

Bugsby failed to establish a good arguable case that the claimed loss would be suffered as a consequence of the injunctions; the loss was speculative and not supported by solid, credible evidence. Even if necessary, Bugsby did not show a good arguable case that the funders would not meet their undertakings, given their financial strength and reputational risk.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Bugsby's application for fortification of cross-undertakings in damages is dismissed.