Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor [2025] EWHC 3003 (Ch) (14 November 2025)

Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor [2025] EWHC 3003 (Ch) (14 November 2025)

The application for leave to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Claimants had a reasonable prospect of success. The judge found that the principles for strike-out and summary judgment were correctly applied, the construction of the charge was clear and not affected by private agreements, the appointment of administrators was valid, no Braganza-type duty arose, and the claim was an abuse of process and/or estopped.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3003 (Ch)
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
Company Law / Insolvency / Application for Leave to Appeal After Summary Judgment and Strike Out
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Construction of Security Documents, Appointment of Administrators, Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Implied Terms, Braganza Duty
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Construction of Security Documents Appointment of Administrators Estoppel +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 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

Company Law / Insolvency / Application for Leave to Appeal After Summary Judgment and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in law in applying the same principles to strike-out and summary judgment applications
  2. 2 Whether the construction of the charge document was correct
  3. 3 Whether private agreements or negotiating background could affect the construction of the charge

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Claimants had a reasonable prospect of success. The judge found that the principles for strike-out and summary judgment were correctly applied, the construction of the charge was clear and not affected by private agreements, the appointment of administrators was valid, no Braganza-type duty arose, and the claim was an abuse of process and/or estopped.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused