KL Capital Ltd v Townsley & Ors [2025] EWHC 2740 (Comm) (24 October 2025)
Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success on either ground: the rule against reflective loss did not bar the claim, and the contractual construction was correctly applied.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 2740 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimant: KL Capital Limited; Defendant: Mr Kenneth Townsley; Defendant: Mr Stephen Bacon; Defendant: Mr Kevin Philbin; Defendant: BY Corporate LLP (formerly Atticus Legal LLP)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 24 October 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Reflective Loss, Permission to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Contractual Construction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
KL Capital Limited
Claimant
Mr Kenneth Townsley
Defendant
Mr Stephen Bacon
Defendant
Mr Kevin Philbin
Defendant
BY Corporate LLP (formerly Atticus Legal LLP)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the rule against reflective loss bars the Claimant's claim
- 2 Whether the definition of 'Proposed Claims' encompasses the Stage II claims in the Particulars of Claim
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success on either ground: the rule against reflective loss did not bar the claim, and the contractual construction was correctly applied.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment