iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 2,465
Member is Online
|
Post by iRobot on May 14, 2019 7:34:45 GMT
As I understand it, in the most general terms, the purpose of a CMC is to make progress, and the purpose of an application to adjourn is to delay progress.
Thus a dismissal of an application by the borrower to adjourn would loosely translate in layman's terms to "the judge isn't allowing the borrower use their latest attempted stalling tactic".
I'm not really sure that further details beyond that need to be known other than by Lendy's legal team and those who are directly instructing them. In particular, I don't feel a need to know any gritty details beyond "Lendy are still pushing for progress on the recovery strategy".
Perhaps the borrower thought that Lendy would be so busy with other stuff (banking issues etc.) that they'd fail to respond to the application to adjourn in time to allow it to be dismissed?
There are also the Receivers and their legal counsel, so between them (and I can't imagine they don't share info and coordinate approaches) they ought to have these things covered off.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 15, 2019 13:42:32 GMT
For anyone interested.......
The Rolls Buildings, Court * Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE **** QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Thursday 16 May 2019
At 02:00 PM
CMC
BL-2018-000*** Led**** and another v All*** LLP
&
Application Hearing
BL-2018-000*** Led**** another v All***
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 332
|
Post by zlb on May 15, 2019 15:58:03 GMT
For anyone interested....... The Rolls Buildings, Court * Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE **** QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court Thursday 16 May 2019 At 02:00 PM CMC BL-2018-000*** Led**** and another v All*** LLP & Application Hearing BL-2018-000*** Led**** another v All*** Is one allowed to say what this hearing is for? I can only find transcript from 29/03.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 15, 2019 16:04:42 GMT
For anyone interested....... The Rolls Buildings, Court * Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE **** QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court Thursday 16 May 2019 At 02:00 PM CMC BL-2018-000*** Led**** and another v All*** LLP & Application Hearing BL-2018-000*** Led**** another v All*** Is one allowed to say what this hearing is for? I can only find transcript from 29/03. Not sure if I can say, as not in the public domain. From my understanding, part of the hearing should be to the benefit of the lenders. Should I attend Court, I will make some basic notes and post here tomorrow night, or when I am next logged in here.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 16, 2019 18:50:33 GMT
I will keep this summary short. Court CMC hearing at 2pm today.
The claimant, nor their legal representatives were present in Court.
The hearing was 2 hours long, as various aspects of the case were continued to be discussed as IS had sent further lengthy emails to HC*, DA* and also an email to the Court as late, or I should say as early as 3am this morning stating that they [the companies] had located a funder for the litigation. No details were provided by the claimant as to the identity of the funder or the terms of the funding.
The pertinent points for the lenders are:
The case can NOT proceed further or restart against the lenders unless the outstanding costs of £329,556.76 are settled by the claimant (no later than the 24 July) or the claimant obtains a Court order to restart against the lenders. If she applies for a Court order to restart, she will have to satisfy the Court as to why she did not fulfil any of her previous obligations. This will be nearing on impossible.
In the event that she pays the £329k by the 24 July, I was advised by DH that they [Lendy?] would again file for a Security of Costs, which in effect would mean that her costs next time around will be even higher than this time, and places too much risk on the project for any litigation funders.
In conclusion, an order has been made based upon the above criteria by the Court, whereby no further claim can be brought [against the lenders or Lendy] unless one of the above criteria are fulfilled, hence, the case is now drawing to a solid conclusion.
If I or Mousey obtain a summary of the judgement, we will post it here.
|
|
trevor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 556
Likes: 379
|
Post by trevor on May 16, 2019 19:24:05 GMT
Thanks v much Mucho
|
|
|
Post by magoo68 on May 16, 2019 19:39:19 GMT
As ever, much appreciated!!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,149
Likes: 4,880
|
Post by adrianc on May 16, 2019 19:57:30 GMT
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,975
Likes: 11,198
|
Post by ilmoro on May 16, 2019 20:05:32 GMT
Thanks Mucho P2P I assume there was nothing that would prevent the LPA getting on with recovery now.
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 402
Likes: 485
|
Post by stokeloans on May 16, 2019 20:50:03 GMT
Thanks Mucho P2P I assume there was nothing that would prevent the LPA getting on with recovery now. Not until after july 24th I'd imagine
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 16, 2019 21:07:13 GMT
Thanks Mucho P2P I assume there was nothing that would prevent the LPA getting on with recovery now. Ilmoro, apparently the issue with recovering the capital in the past was that the LPA was placed on notice that the claimant would seek an injunction the moment the property was placed on the market, therefor halting any such actions, and complicating the process even further. The judgement was delivered in several sections in relation to the "numerous" claimants and defendants. My notes do however show that the claimants can make no claim against the LPA until the LPA have received their costs in full from the claimant. To err on the side of caution, I can see Lendy not selling the property until the final deadline of 24th July. Reason being, should they dispose of the property, and then the claimant does somehow miraculously appear with the £329k in owed costs, then this fiasco would become an even larger bowl of spaghetti. It might be that Lendy, after discussing with DH QC, decide that the risk is so minimal that they do proceed to dispose of the property ASAP. To set lenders minds at ease, I did manage to have a quick chat to DH QC at the end of the trial, and he is fairly confident that this is the end of the saga.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,149
Likes: 4,880
|
Post by adrianc on May 16, 2019 21:15:32 GMT
We've waited this long, I'm perfectly happy to wait another two months if it reduces the risk of yet more legal fees eating into the recovery.
About the only place I'd be happy to see more fees being incurred is in seeking to recover the costs from the individual claimant (Jr). "Impecunious"? Let's see how highly she values ending her student career as an undischarged bankrupt, like her mother.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on May 16, 2019 21:20:02 GMT
Thank you very much.
I'm not clear what's this £329k for? Is it to pay for the legal fee? Or is it something else?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 16, 2019 21:31:18 GMT
Thank you very much. I'm not clear what's this £329k for? Is it to pay for the legal fee? Or is it something else? The £329k is the defendants costs to date, basically Lendys costs in employing their legal teams.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on May 16, 2019 21:44:56 GMT
Thank you very much. I'm not clear what's this £329k for? Is it to pay for the legal fee? Or is it something else? The £329k is the defendants costs to date, basically Lendys costs in employing their legal teams. Thanks. So if someone is suing you, you can get the person pay for your legal cost?
|
|