Transomas Limited & Anor v Kheri Trading Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2708 (Ch)
Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors
14 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 549 (Ch)
High Court
A company sued a family for misusing company money. The family asked for more time because of health issues and lack of money for a lawyer. The judge refused, saying they hadn't tried hard enough to get money and had already had good legal help earlier. The family was given a short time to provide evidence, or their defense will be thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Manolete Partners PLC applied for a stay of proceedings against Mohammed Jawed Karim and others.
- •The application was based on the First Defendant's ill health and lack of funds for legal representation.
- •The Defendants had substantially failed to cooperate with the court and their opposing party since January 2023.
- •The case involved allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds.
- •The Defendants had previously been represented by high-quality legal advisors.
- •A previous order for disclosure had been made in November, but not complied with.
- •The Defendants argued that obtaining funding for representation was necessary to prepare for trial.
Legal Principles
Trial dates should be established early and only shifted in grave circumstances.
Civil Procedure Rules
Applicants seeking an adjournment due to financial constraints must demonstrate their full financial circumstances to the court.
Implicit in the judge's reasoning
Even without sufficient funding, litigants must pursue litigation to the best of their ability.
Implicit in the judge's reasoning
Outcomes
The application for a stay was dismissed.
The judge found the Defendants' arguments regarding ill health and lack of funds insufficient to justify a stay, particularly given their previous representation and failure to actively pursue funding.
An unless order was made regarding disclosure.
The Defendants had failed to comply with a previous disclosure order. The judge gave a 14-day extension to provide disclosure; failure to comply would result in the striking out of their defence.
The Preliminary Trial Review (PTR) was vacated and relisted for 19 March.
To allow time for disclosure and preparation for trial, given the previous delays.
A timeframe was set for witness statements.
To manage the remaining time before trial given the delays caused by defendants.
Similar Cases
Manolete Partners PLC v Nigel John Jones & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 236 (Ch)
Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
Paul Andrew Whittaker v Bertha UK Limited
[2023] EWHC 2554 (Ch)
L & S Accounting Firm Umbrella Limited v Idusogie Laurel Oronsaye & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2315 (Ch)