Mihir Vijay Choksi v IPS Law LLP

Mihir Vijay Choksi v IPS Law LLP

The construction of the BLA is sufficiently uncertain and raises real questions as to whether IPS Law LLP was bound to retain and return the funds or could act on Biodex's instructions; these issues are not suitable for summary determination and must go to trial. Arguments based on variation, acquiescence, or estoppel by the claimant are fanciful and unsupported by evidence, but the core construction issue has a realistic prospect of success for the defence.

Parties
Claimant: Mihir Vijay Choksi; Defendant: IPS Law LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; claim to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Escrow Arrangements, Quistclose Trust, Contractual Interpretation, Variation and Estoppel, Breach of Trust, Legal Professional Conduct
Contract Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Escrow Arrangements Quistclose Trust Contractual Interpretation Variation and Estoppel +2 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mihir Vijay Choksi

Claimant

IPS Law LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bridging Loan Agreement (BLA) imposed binding contractual or trust obligations on IPS Law LLP to retain and return the claimant's funds
  2. 2 Whether IPS Law LLP breached its obligations by paying out the funds at Biodex's direction
  3. 3 Whether any variation, acquiescence, or estoppel prevents the claimant from enforcing the original terms of the BLA

Ratio Decidendi

The construction of the BLA is sufficiently uncertain and raises real questions as to whether IPS Law LLP was bound to retain and return the funds or could act on Biodex's instructions; these issues are not suitable for summary determination and must go to trial. Arguments based on variation, acquiescence, or estoppel by the claimant are fanciful and unsupported by evidence, but the core construction issue has a realistic prospect of success for the defence.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; claim to proceed to trial.