High Court Addresses Complex Legal Issues in Astute Capital PLC v. Countrylarge 444 Limited Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 75 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Astute Capital PLC & Anor v Countrylarge 444 Limited & Ors, the High Court engaged with a variety of complex legal issues. The case delved into aspects of civil procedure, including relief from sanctions, summary judgments, strike-out applications, terms of injunctions, undertakings in damages, requests for further information, and applications for extensions of time. This article provides an analysis of the significant legal principles and decisions that arose from this litigation.

Key Facts

In this matter, Astute Capital PLC and Astute Capital Advisors Limited (the Claimants) brought proceedings against Countrylarge 444 Limited and others (the Defendants) including Finlaw Property Limited and its directors. The case involved applications for relief from sanctions, counterclaim defenses, and multiple ‘strike-out’ applications by the Defendants—essentially challenges to the legitimacy or viability of the Claimants’ claims. Subsequent to the judgment, applications were also made concerning an injunction to prevent the disposal of assets, a request for further information under CPR 25.1(1)(g), and extensions of time for the re-amendment of particulars of claim by the Claimants.

Relief from Sanctions and Applications for Extensions

The Judge applied the principles established in Denton v. White [2014] 1 WLR 3926, determining that the Defendants’ revocation of consent to an extended deadline and subsequent challenge to the Claimants’ application for relief from sanctions constituted unreasonable and opportunistic conduct. Therefore, the Claimants were entitled to a relief from sanctions and an extension of time.

Interim Injunctions and Undertakings in Damages

Principles relevant to the provision of an undertaking in damages were evaluated, with reference to the Defendant’s ability to continue as a going concern and the appropriate security for an interim injunction. The Court decided not to require fortification by a payment into court as the assets under injunction did not appear to carry saleable value or substantial rental income.

Strike-Out Applications

The court utilized the rationale from Fourie v. Le Roux [2007] 1 WLR 320 and R(Wasif) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 to determine that an application was “totally without merit.” The Third Strike Out application, which contested the procedural appropriateness and existence of material non-disclosure, was dismissed as such.

Request for Further Information

The Court endorsed the application of CPR Rule 25.1(1)(g), which supports orders directing a party to provide information about the location of property or assets that are or may be subject to an application for an injunction. The request for information, although not originally framed under CPR 25.1(1)(g), fell within its ambit and warranted the provision of further details from the Defendants.

Outcomes

The key outcomes of the hearing were:

  • The refusal to amend the terms of an interim injunction as sought by the Defendants.
  • The provision of an undertaking in damages by the Claimants, without further fortification.
  • The dismissal of the Third Strike Out application as totally without merit.
  • The indemnity costs orders against the Defendants on the Relief/Extension and the Third Strike Out applications, with the costs set for detailed assessment.
  • The allowance of the Claimants’ application for further information in certain areas, with some requests being revised or rejected.
  • A grant of extension for service of the re-re-amended particulars of claim after obtaining the requested information.

Conclusion

This case exemplifies the Court’s discretion in matters of civil procedure, specifically regarding applications for interim relief. The court rigorously assessed the Defendants’ behavior throughout the litigation process and emphasized the criticality of transparency and cooperation among parties. The determinations made on the issues presented reaffirm established legal principles that guide the court’s decision-making, notably concerning injunctive relief, interim remedies, and the obligations parties bear in their conduct within judicial proceedings.