Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor [2025] EWHC 2166 (Ch) (18 August 2025)

Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor [2025] EWHC 2166 (Ch) (18 August 2025)

The administrators were validly appointed; the assignment of security rights was effective; the information obligations extended to all assets; the chargee's exercise of powers was for a proper purpose; no Braganza term applied; claimants are estopped from challenging the appointment due to their conduct and prior proceedings.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2166 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Glint Pay Ltd; Claimant: Glint Pay Services Ltd; Claimant: Glint Pay UK Ltd; Defendant: Jason Daniel Baker; Defendant: Geoffrey Paul Rowley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial/chancery / Application to Strike Out And/or Reverse Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; reverse summary judgment granted for defendants.
Legal Topics
Validity of Administrator Appointment, Assignment of Security Rights, Proper Purpose Rule, Implied Terms (braganza), Estoppel by Conduct
Insolvency Company Law Contract Law Validity of Administrator Appointment Assignment of Security Rights Proper Purpose Rule Implied Terms (braganza) Estoppel by Conduct

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glint Pay Ltd

Claimant

Glint Pay Services Ltd

Claimant

Glint Pay UK Ltd

Claimant

Jason Daniel Baker

Defendant

Geoffrey Paul Rowley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/chancery / Application to Strike Out And/or Reverse Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the administrators were validly appointed
  2. 2 Whether the assignment of security rights was defective
  3. 3 Whether the information obligations were breached

Ratio Decidendi

The administrators were validly appointed; the assignment of security rights was effective; the information obligations extended to all assets; the chargee's exercise of powers was for a proper purpose; no Braganza term applied; claimants are estopped from challenging the appointment due to their conduct and prior proceedings.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; reverse summary judgment granted for defendants.

Orders

  • Claim Form and Particulars of Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2) and CPR 24.3
  • Defendants awarded summary judgment