Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Jason Daniel Baker & Anor

Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Jason Daniel Baker & Anor

None of the grounds of appeal have a reasonable prospect of success because the construction of the charge was correct, private agreements cannot bind assignees, the appointment of administrators was proper, no Braganza-type duty arises, and the claim is barred by estoppel and abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: Glint Pay Ltd; Claimant: Glint Pay Services Ltd; Claimant: Glint Pay UK; Defendant: Jason Daniel Baker; Defendant: Geoffrey Paul Rowley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (company/commercial) / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Summary Judgment and Strike Out)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Construction of Charge Documents, Appointment of Administrators, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Implied Terms (braganza Duty)
Company Law Insolvency Law Contract Law Construction of Charge Documents Appointment of Administrators Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glint Pay Ltd

Claimant

Glint Pay Services Ltd

Claimant

Glint Pay UK

Claimant

Jason Daniel Baker

Defendant

Geoffrey Paul Rowley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (company/commercial) / Application for Leave to Appeal (post Summary Judgment and Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in striking out the claim and granting reverse summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the construction of the charge document was correct
  3. 3 Whether private agreements between original parties affect assignees

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds of appeal have a reasonable prospect of success because the construction of the charge was correct, private agreements cannot bind assignees, the appointment of administrators was proper, no Braganza-type duty arises, and the claim is barred by estoppel and abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused on all grounds