Miranda Investments Ltd & Ors v Dodi & Ors [2025] EWHC 3070 (Ch) (21 November 2025)

Miranda Investments Ltd & Ors v Dodi & Ors [2025] EWHC 3070 (Ch) (21 November 2025)

Summary judgment is granted against the claimants on claims relating to the £500,000 withdrawal, the 24% return, rescission and damages in lieu of rescission, account of rent, and misrepresentation regarding the bank loan, as these claims have no realistic prospect of success. The claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding the million pound investments and the buy-back agreements have a realistic prospect of success and are not suitable for summary judgment or strike out. The limitation period for the contractual claims is 12 years as the agreements are deeds. Exclusion clauses relied on by the defendants are not reasonable under UCTA and do not preclude the claims at...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3070 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Miranda Investments Limited; Claimant: MaraVest Limited; Claimant: Fiona Childerstone; Claimant: Fabrice Triboix; Claimant: Jayshri Patel; Claimant: NJP Holdings Limited; Claimant: Rashwan Limited; Claimant: Savvas Efthimiou; Claimant: Ivor Tillier; Defendant: Mr Abraham (Avi) A Dodi; Defendant: Ms Nicole Sue Bremner; Defendant: Ordan UK Limited; Defendant: RTR Property Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery Division / Defendants' Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in part for the defendants; certain claims proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Shareholders' Agreement, Crowdfunding Investments, Limitation Periods, Exclusion Clauses, Buy Back Agreements
Commercial Law Contract Law Equity Company Law Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Summary Judgment Strike Out +5 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miranda Investments Limited

Claimant

MaraVest Limited

Claimant

Fiona Childerstone

Claimant

Fabrice Triboix

Claimant

Jayshri Patel

Claimant

NJP Holdings Limited

Claimant

Rashwan Limited

Claimant

Savvas Efthimiou

Claimant

Ivor Tillier

Claimant

Mr Abraham (Avi) A Dodi

Defendant

Ms Nicole Sue Bremner

Defendant

Ordan UK Limited

Defendant

RTR Property Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery Division / Defendants' Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' claims should be struck out or subject to summary judgment under CPR 3.4(2) and/or CPR 24.2(a)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a realistic prospect of success on claims for misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission, damages in lieu of rescission, repayment under buy-back agreements, and account of rent
  3. 3 Whether limitation periods bar any of the claims

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is granted against the claimants on claims relating to the £500,000 withdrawal, the 24% return, rescission and damages in lieu of rescission, account of rent, and misrepresentation regarding the bank loan, as these claims have no realistic prospect of success. The claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding the million pound investments and the buy-back agreements have a realistic prospect of success and are not suitable for summary judgment or strike out. The limitation period for the contractual claims is 12 years as the agreements are deeds. Exclusion clauses relied on by the defendants are not reasonable under UCTA and do not preclude the claims at...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part for the defendants; certain claims proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Summary judgment against the claimants on claims relating to the £500,000 withdrawal, 24% return, rescission and damages in lieu of rescission, account of rent, and misrepresentation regarding the bank loan.
  • Claims for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding the million pound investments and buy-back agreements to proceed to trial.