Midland Premier Properties Ltd & Anor v Doal & Ors [2025] EWHC 1639 (Ch) (30 June 2025)

Midland Premier Properties Ltd & Anor v Doal & Ors [2025] EWHC 1639 (Ch) (30 June 2025)

The application is abusive because the defendants could and should have raised all grounds for relief or variation in earlier applications; there has been no material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts since the previous orders. The public and private interests in finality, efficient use of resources,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1639 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Midland Premier Properties Limited; Claimant: Sanman Property Management Limited; Defendant: Rakesh Singh Doal; Defendant: 2020 Living Limited; Defendant: Samuel Ginda; Defendant: Taylor Grange 2 Limited; Defendant: Taylor Grange DM Limited; Defendant: TGDM One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Variation/relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Application dismissed as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Abuse of Process, Variation of Court Orders, Case Management, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Abuse of Process Variation of Court Orders Case Management Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Premier Properties Limited

Claimant

Sanman Property Management Limited

Claimant

Rakesh Singh Doal

Defendant

2020 Living Limited

Defendant

Samuel Ginda

Defendant

Taylor Grange 2 Limited

Defendant

Taylor Grange DM Limited

Defendant

TGDM One Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Variation/relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' application to vary or obtain partial relief from the debarring order is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant variation or relief from sanctions under CPR 3.1(7) or CPR 3.9
  3. 3 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts justifying variation of the orders

Ratio Decidendi

The application is abusive because the defendants could and should have raised all grounds for relief or variation in earlier applications; there has been no material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts since the previous orders. The public and private interests in finality, efficient use of resources, and avoidance of vexation outweigh the defendants' interest in defending the quantum issue. The application is dismissed as an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Defendants' application to vary or obtain partial relief from the debarring order is dismissed
  • No variation or relief from sanctions is granted