Anthony Alan Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP & Ors

Anthony Alan Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP & Ors

The claim is struck out in its entirety under CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b), and (c) as it discloses no reasonable grounds, is abusive, repetitive, and fails to comply with procedural requirements. There is no legal basis for claims against RSM, and no permission was sought or could be granted to sue the former joint administrators. The allegations are unparticularised, unsupported, and based on fundamental misconceptions of law and fact. The claim is totally without merit and constitutes persistent vexatious litigation, justifying an Extended Civil Restraint Order for three years.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Alan Gladwin; Defendant: RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP; Defendant: Paul Dounis; Defendant: Gareth Harris; Defendant: Steven Ross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/company) / Strike Out Application and Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Claim struck out as totally without merit; Extended Civil Restraint Order imposed for three years.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Civil Restraint Order, Abuse of Process, Fraud Allegations, Jurisdiction, Permission to Sue Administrators
Insolvency Civil Procedure Company Law Strike Out Civil Restraint Order Abuse of Process Fraud Allegations Jurisdiction +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Alan Gladwin

Claimant

RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP

Defendant

Paul Dounis

Defendant

Gareth Harris

Defendant

Steven Ross

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/company) / Strike Out Application and Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process or otherwise obstructs the just disposal of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claim fails to comply with rules, practice directions or court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out in its entirety under CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b), and (c) as it discloses no reasonable grounds, is abusive, repetitive, and fails to comply with procedural requirements. There is no legal basis for claims against RSM, and no permission was sought or could be granted to sue the former joint administrators. The allegations are unparticularised, unsupported, and based on fundamental misconceptions of law and fact. The claim is totally without merit and constitutes persistent vexatious litigation, justifying an Extended Civil Restraint Order for three years.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as totally without merit; Extended Civil Restraint Order imposed for three years.

Orders

  • The entire claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b), and (c).
  • The claim is certified as totally without merit (TWM).