Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Marcus Smith |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 828 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim Nos: E00YE350, BL-2019-BRS-000028, F00YE085 |
| Date | 31 March 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 828 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
INSOLVENCY & COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
Mr Justice Marcus Smith
Claim Nos: E00YE350, BL-2019-BRS-000028, F00YE085
Heather Rogers, QC (instructed by Ashfords LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants in Claim No BL-2019-000028 (the Brake Parties)
Andrew Sutcliffe QC and William Day (instructed by Stewarts LLP) and EDWIN JOHNSON QC and NIRAJ MODHA (instructed by Stewarts LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants in Claim No BL-2019-000028, the Claimants in Claim No E00YE350 and the Defendant in Claim No F00YE085 (the Guy Parties)
Approved Judgment
Wednesday, 31 March 2021
Between 23 and 27 November 2020, His Honour Judge Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) heard a dispute between the following parties in Claim No BL-2019-BRS-000028:
a. The claimants in those proceedings were a Mr Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake and Mr Andrew Young Brake.
b. The defendants were Mr Geoffrey William Guy, the Chedington Court Estate Limited and Axnoller Events Limited.
I am going to refer to the claimants as the “ Brake Parties” and to the defendants as the “ Guy Parties”. I do so conscious of the fact that the precise constitution of who are Brake Parties and who are Guy Parties varies from action to action, for (as will become clear) there are three sets of relevant proceedings before me today. I shall refer to the proceedings under Claim No BL-2019-BRS-000028 as the “ Current Proceedings”. I shall refer to His Honour Judge Matthews as the “ Judge”.
In the Current Proceedings, the Brake Parties were represented by Ms Daisy Brown, instructed then by Porter Dodson LLP. The Guy Parties were represented by Mr Andrew Sutcliffe, QC and Mr William Day, instructed by Stewarts Law LLP.
This was a substantial trial and the Judge reserved his judgment. His judgment was formally handed down on Thursday, 25 March 2021. As is usual, a draft judgment was circulated, on a confidential basis, before that date. I understand that this was on Friday, 19 March 2021. I shall, for reasons that will become clear, refer to this judgment as the “ Main Judgment”. It bears a neutral citation number [2021] EWHC 671 (Ch).
As I understand it, there were already intimations that all was not well with the Brake Parties' counsel team before 29 March 2021. I do not know enough about these matters to say anything about these circumstances and I am going to base myself, in this ruling, on the communications the court has received from the parties, rather than on matters which may or may not have been going on, as it were, behind the scenes.
I should note, however, that the Brake Parties replaced their solicitors at trial, Porter Dodson LLP, with their present solicitors, Ashfords LLP (“ Ashfords”). Again, I say nothing more than to note this change of solicitor for the record. I can say nothing more about this for the very good reason that I know nothing more.
The hearing consequential on judgment was fixed by the Judge for 10.30am on 31 March 2021, which is the last day of this term. It is trite that an order consequential on judgment ought to be made as soon as is practically possible after the handing down of judgment. It is self-evidently right that the terms of the judgment be swiftly embodied in an order that sets out what the judge has found and directed. That is a matter of basic justice.
In this case, however, the consequentials hearing is of particular importance and it is particularly important, at least to the Guy Parties, that it take place quickly. That is for a number of reasons, which I am going to come to. Before I do so, however, it is necessary that I give some insight into the complexity of the proceedings between the Brake Parties and the Guy Parties.
For the purposes of this exposition, which is necessarily brief and which omits a great deal, I go back to 2019. In 2019, the Brake Parties obtained an interim injunction. They obtained it from Mr John Jarvis, QC sitting as a judge of the High Court. Mr Jarvis' judgment bears the neutral citation number [2019] EWHC 3332 (Ch). The order that Mr Jarvis made consequential on his judgment prevented the Guy Parties from using certain documents in an email account (the “ Documents”). I am not going to say anything more about the precise detail of the injunction that was granted, save to say that I will refer to it as the “ Interim Injunction”, and to note that the Interim Injunction, as obtained by the Brake Parties, appears, and certainly that is the Guy Parties' position, to be no longer sustainable as a result of the Judge's recent conclusions as set out in the Main Judgment.
In May 2020, the Brake Parties applied, acting by way of Mr Stephen Davies, QC, instructed by Seddons LLP, to the Judge, requesting that the Judge recuse himself. The Judge considered the application carefully — it is reported at [2020] EWHC 1156 (Ch) — and he refused the application. Permission to appeal that decision was refused by Patten LJ, when the Brake Parties sought permission to appeal on the papers.
The recusal application took place prior to insolvency proceedings under section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, heard before and determined by the Judge in a decision under neutral citation number [2020] EWHC 1810 (Ch). This was a claim of the Brake Parties, which was dismissed by the Judge. Permission to appeal was again refused, on this occasion by Andrews LJ.
Moving on, the Main Judgment was accompanied by a second judgment, also dated 25 March 2021, which I shall refer to as the “ Preliminary Issue Judgment”. The preliminary issue to which that judgment relates was argued at the end of the trial of the Current Proceedings that resulted in the Main Judgment, on 27 November 2020. Counsel on that occasion were Mr Davies, QC and Ms Brown, again instructed by Porter Dodson LLP. The Preliminary Issue Judgment, bearing the same date as the Main Judgment, is reported under neutral citation [2021] EWHC 670 (Ch).
It is, I trust, already very clear, without getting into the substance or the detail, that these are hard fought and complex proceedings. But the Main Judgment and the Preliminary Issue Judgment recently handed down are not the end of the story. Two related sets of proceedings have already been listed before the Judge. They are as follows.
First, there are what are termed before me as the “ Possession Proceedings”. This is a seven-day trial listed for 26 to 30 April and 4 to 5 May 2021. Secondly, there are what are termed the “ Eviction Proceedings”, a five-day trial listed for 10 to 14 May 2021. I do not think it particularly matters, but for the record I note that in the Possession Proceedings the Guy Parties are the claimants, whereas in all the other proceedings, including the Eviction Proceedings, they are the defendants.
The matters which arise for determination at a hearing consequential on the Main Judgment and the Preliminary Issue Judgment (the “ Consequentials Hearing”) involve, self-evidently, given the chronology I have articulated, questions which relate also to the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings. In effect, the hearing that I am invited to adjourn today, what I call the Consequentials Hearing, is a combination of a hearing of matter consequential on the Main Judgment and the Preliminary Issue Judgment as well as a pre-trial review for the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings.
The matters which arise for consideration are, in essence, these.
a. First, directions are urgently required for the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings. Unless directions are given, there is a real risk that both of these proceedings, which (as I say) are listed to be heard imminently, will be derailed and may not, purely by an absence of direction, take place unless they are properly “looked after”.
b. Secondly, there is the question of the discharge of the Interim Injunction. As a matter of course, any interim restraint on a party that has been proved at trial not to be justified ought to be reviewed by the court as a matter of urgency. That, again, I trust, goes without saying.
c. Thirdly, there is the question of the damages inquiry consequent upon the arguable discharge of the Interim Injunction. This is perhaps on the less urgent end of the scale of the matters that are before me.
d. Fourthly, the Guy Parties seek an order permitted the use of certain of the Documents — to the extent they are relevant — in the Possession Proceedings and in the Eviction Proceedings. Their deployment was previously enjoined by the Interim Injunction. There is a degree of urgency here, because of imminence of the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings.
e. Fifthly, there are the more usual consequential matters, costs, permission to appeal and other matters.
I am going to refer generically to all of these matters as “ Consequential Matters”, although (as I have indicated) it is quite clear that some matters are backward looking, that is to say they are genuinely consequential upon the outcome of the Main Judgment and the Preliminary Issue Judgment, and some matters are forward looking, because they relate in essence to directions in relation to the Possession Proceedings and the Eviction Proceedings.
This is a flavour of the matters that the Judge would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
...Smith J on 31 March 2021. On that occasion Marcus Smith J heard and refused an application for that hearing to be adjourned: see [2021] EWHC 828 (Ch). He then proceeded to deal with some aspects of, and give some directions in relation to, all three claims (finalised after considering writ......
-
Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
...to adjourn the consequential matters hearing. That application was refused by the judge for reasons which he gave at the time: see [2021] EWHC 828 (Ch). 5 Marcus Smith J went on to deal with a number of matters concerning the then shortly forthcoming two further trials. In particular, the ......
-
Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
...and was refused by me, and the other two were to adjourn the hearing of consequential matters and were refused by Marcus Smith J: [2021] EWHC 828 (Ch). But I should say that none of these applications was put on medical 6 In the present case, I have read the application notice, the evidenc......