Skywind Holdings Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Anor [2025] EWHC 3524 (Comm) (17 - 18 December 2025)
Permission granted for Defendants to rely on expert evidence (Shields Report) limited to Scenario 2 (post-dated fabrication of messages), as expert evidence is necessary or reasonably required for the authenticity issue and can be accommodated without prejudice or jeopardising the trial date. Permission granted for Claimants to rely on late-served factual witness evidence (Burton 3) as the default was not serious or significant and relief from sanctions is appropriate. Permission granted for Claimants to rely on documents disclosed after Extended Disclosure deadline as they only came into control after the deadline; no order required. Permission granted for Mr Burton to give evidence by...
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 3524 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimant: Skywind Holdings Limited; Claimant: In Touch Games Limited; Defendant: Simon Robert Wilson; Defendant: Yu-Lin Wilson; Defendant: Ruskin Properties Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Litigation (fraud, Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) With Multiple Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Applications determined as follows: Expert Evidence Application granted in part (Scenario 2 only); PD 57AD Application dismissed as unnecessary; Burton 3 Application granted (relief from sanctions); Video Link Application granted; Privilege Application and further directions reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Expert Evidence, Disclosure and Privilege, Relief From Sanctions, Remote Testimony, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Conspiracy
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Skywind Holdings Limited
Claimant
In Touch Games Limited
Claimant
Simon Robert Wilson
Defendant
Yu-Lin Wilson
Defendant
Ruskin Properties Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (fraud, Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) With Multiple Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Defendants may rely on late-served expert evidence (Shields Report) on the technical possibility of forging WhatsApp/Telegram messages
- 2 Whether Claimants may rely on late-served factual witness evidence (Burton 3)
- 3 Whether Claimants may rely on documents disclosed after the Extended Disclosure deadline under PD 57AD.12.5
Ratio Decidendi
Permission granted for Defendants to rely on expert evidence (Shields Report) limited to Scenario 2 (post-dated fabrication of messages), as expert evidence is necessary or reasonably required for the authenticity issue and can be accommodated without prejudice or jeopardising the trial date. Permission granted for Claimants to rely on late-served factual witness evidence (Burton 3) as the default was not serious or significant and relief from sanctions is appropriate. Permission granted for Claimants to rely on documents disclosed after Extended Disclosure deadline as they only came into control after the deadline; no order required. Permission granted for Mr Burton to give evidence by...
Court Disposition
Applications determined as follows: Expert Evidence Application granted in part (Scenario 2 only); PD 57AD Application dismissed as unnecessary; Burton 3 Application granted (relief from sanctions); Video Link Application granted; Privilege Application and further directions reserved.
Orders
- Defendants granted permission to rely on Shields Report limited to Scenario 2; Claimants to serve responsive expert evidence by end of January 2026.
- Claimants at liberty to rely on documents disclosed after Extended Disclosure deadline; PD 57AD Application dismissed as unnecessary.
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