Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 5, 2021 15:33:01 GMT
Three day hearing next week
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 8, 2021 21:06:19 GMT
Day 1 – Write Up Stephen Cogley QC appeared initially on behalf of the borrower MDC AKA “Mr Borrower” Mr Cogley QC applied for an application: - to discharge or vary the injunction against Mr Borrower - to adjourn the hearing. The court was told that Funding Secure had obtained a freezing injunction over Mr Borrower in June 2019. Mr Borrower wanted to discharge the injunction or vary it to exclude the “Lytham property”. This would release monies to enable Mr Borrower to finance legal fees to defend the ‘substantive application’ arising during this three-day-hearing. Mr Cogley QC told the court that if the application to discharge/vary the freezing injunction was successful then they would also seek to adjourn the substantive application. If the application was unsuccessful then Mr Borrower would not be able to afford legal representation and would have to continue the hearing as a litigant in person. Mr William Buck, counsel representing Asertis Ltd (the company that had been assigned the right from Funding Secure) resisted the application to discharge/vary the injunction. He told the court that an application hearing had originally been listed for half a day on Feb 3rd 2021 and by consent had been adjourned until today to be dealt with alongside the substantive application. A witness statement from Mr Borrowers solicitor reportedly said “cash resources to date have been loans from friends which have now been exhausted”. In his extempore judgement HHJ Hodge QC ruled that “the evidence of lack of funding for this hearing was all assertion, unsupported by any detail or explanation of last-minute change of circumstance.” The judge said he was satisfied the application “is a tactical manoeuvre and it would not be fair to the applicants[Asertis] who were given 3 days for this hearing back in November”. The judge told the court that proceedings against Richard Luxmore were stayed by a Tomlin order dated 3rd Nov 2020 and Mr Luxmore is no longer restricted by the freezing injunction. Responding to an application to appeal by Mr Cogley QC the judge refused permission stating there was “no real prospect of appealing what is essentially a case management decision.” Mr Cogley QC then left the hearing and it is understood Mr Borrowers entire legal team was taken off the record. Mr Borrower appeared unrepresented for the remained of the day. The substantive application, and the reason for this 3-day hearing, is to allow Asertis Ltd an opportunity to strike out the claims made by Mr Borrower. The claims themselves are very complex, essentially alleging a £15m conspiracy against two former directors of Fundingsecure Ltd, allegations which are denied. The reasons for strike out include an allegation of abuse of process and the maxim that "he who comes with equity should come with clean hands". Mr William Buck made submissions for the remainder of the day and Mr Borrower will have an opportunity to make submissions tomorrow morning. It is anticipated Judgement will be handed down on Wednesday morning. The hearing continues...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Feb 8, 2021 23:08:07 GMT
thanks for this - as I see it the judge is not buying the defence of Mr Borrower - unless I am mistaken so far this is going well for us...
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 9, 2021 9:59:19 GMT
thanks for this - as I see it the judge is not buying the defence of Mr Borrower - unless I am mistaken so far this is going well for us... To clarify the judge didn't buy the excuse of the last-minute adjournment. There is not a 'defence' as it's not a trial.
It's very specifically looking at whether the Borrowers counterclaims should be struck out.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Feb 9, 2021 10:25:09 GMT
thanks for clarifying - have only just got my head around what a Tomlin order is...
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Feb 10, 2021 11:51:15 GMT
Day 1 – Write Up Stephen Cogley QC appeared initially on behalf of the borrower MDC AKA “Mr Borrower” Mr Cogley QC applied for an application: - to discharge or vary the injunction against Mr Borrower - to adjourn the hearing. The court was told that Funding Secure had obtained a freezing injunction over Mr Borrower in June 2019. Mr Borrower wanted to discharge the injunction or vary it to exclude the “Lytham property”. This would release monies to enable Mr Borrower to finance legal fees to defend the ‘substantive application’ arising during this three-day-hearing. Mr Cogley QC told the court that if the application to discharge/vary the freezing injunction was successful then they would also seek to adjourn the substantive application. If the application was unsuccessful then Mr Borrower would not be able to afford legal representation and would have to continue the hearing as a litigant in person. Mr William Buck, counsel representing Asertis Ltd (the company that had been assigned the right from Funding Secure) resisted the application to discharge/vary the injunction. He told the court that an application hearing had originally been listed for half a day on Feb 3rd 2021 and by consent had been adjourned until today to be dealt with alongside the substantive application. A witness statement from Mr Borrowers solicitor reportedly said “cash resources to date have been loans from friends which have now been exhausted”. In his extempore judgement HHJ Hodge QC ruled that “the evidence of lack of funding for this hearing was all assertion, unsupported by any detail or explanation of last-minute change of circumstance.” The judge said he was satisfied the application “is a tactical manoeuvre and it would not be fair to the applicants[Asertis] who were given 3 days for this hearing back in November”. The judge told the court that proceedings against Richard Luxmore were stayed by a Tomlin order dated 3rd Nov 2020 and Mr Luxmore is no longer restricted by the freezing injunction. Responding to an application to appeal by Mr Cogley QC the judge refused permission stating there was “no real prospect of appealing what is essentially a case management decision.” Mr Cogley QC then left the hearing and it is understood Mr Borrowers entire legal team was taken off the record. Mr Borrower appeared unrepresented for the remained of the day. The substantive application, and the reason for this 3-day hearing, is to allow Asertis Ltd an opportunity to strike out the claims made by Mr Borrower. The claims themselves are very complex, essentially alleging a £15m conspiracy against two former directors of Fundingsecure Ltd, allegations which are denied. The reasons for strike out include an allegation of abuse of process and the maxim that "he who comes with equity should come with clean hands". Mr William Buck made submissions for the remainder of the day and Mr Borrower will have an opportunity to make submissions tomorrow morning. It is anticipated Judgement will be handed down on Wednesday morning. The hearing continues... Hi Mousey Would you be able to give us an update? Many thanks.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 986
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by james100 on Feb 11, 2021 10:35:38 GMT
Hi Mousey Would you be able to give us an update? Many thanks. I'm also interested in how this went, if you have a moment to share any news, Mousey
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 11, 2021 19:53:52 GMT
The substantive application failed, however what the application was trying to achieve is very complicated.
The judge was very kind to thoroughly consider a written request I made for: 1) provision of the parties Skeleton Arguments and
2) A direction that I should be provided with access, subject to conditions, to the trial bundle.
Mr Borrower resisted my application for the Skeleton Arguments, and both parties resisted my application for access to the trial bundle.
HHJ Hodge QC ordered disclosure of the skeleton arguments following the principle in the case of Howell & Ors, v R [2003] EWCA Crim 486. The judge did not consider that my request for access to the entire bundle was proportionate given that "the bulk of the material in the bundle has not been referred to or relied upon by the court". The judge also considered that my reason for access, to allow public scrutiny of the Fundingsecure v Borrower aspect, was not the subject of the applications before the court during that hearing.
Further information will follow
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 986
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by james100 on Feb 11, 2021 20:00:20 GMT
The substantive application failed, however what the application was trying to achieve is very complicated.
The judge was very kind to thoroughly consider a written request I made for: 1) provision of the parties Skeleton Arguments and
2) A direction that I should be provided with access, subject to conditions, to the trial bundle.
Mr Borrower resisted my application for the Skeleton Arguments, and both parties resisted my application for access to the trial bundle.
HHJ Hodge QC ordered disclosure of the skeleton arguments following the principle in the case of Howell & Ors, v R [2003] EWCA Crim 486. The judge did not consider that my request for access to the entire bundle was proportionate given that "the bulk of the material in the bundle has not been referred to or relied upon by the court". The judge also considered that my reason for access, to allow public scrutiny of the Fundingsecure v Borrower aspect, was not the subject of the applications before the court during that hearing.
Further information will follow
Thank you very much Mr Mouse.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Feb 11, 2021 22:55:09 GMT
Mousey
Big thank you from all of us regarding your efforts interesting case above and well done for getting the skeleton arguments - I would guess The Borrower may possibly have had legal help in formulating his argument as most of us just have not got the legal expertise to concoct such a scenario...
Well this is an interesting one - can't wait for the next instalment
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 12, 2021 12:20:26 GMT
adrian77 it's a useful case to cite although at least one party in another case I'm covering on here is actively resisting it.
The weirdest case I've ever cited was Para 34 in Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd. This helped successfully challenge a reporting restriction in a case of significant public interest back in December.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 27, 2021 12:27:53 GMT
Some further information has come to light following the disclosure of Mr Luxmore's defence statement dated 19th May 2020:
At Para 4 Mr Luxmore "denies all allegations against him"
However at Para 16e Mr Luxmore states that FundingSecure's "established practice was that it did advance some loans to borrowers using client account funds prior to that borrowing being matched to lenders" and he claims that "This established practice was also routinely practised by Nigel Hackett"
At Para 42 Mr Luxmore claims that: "On 2 January 2019, a board meeting of the Directors took place, at which, amongst other things: ... c. Raj Kumar proposed that Richard Luxmore give up his shares to [FundingSecure] on the basis that this would be Richard Luxmore's "punishment""
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Feb 27, 2021 13:29:10 GMT
The more of this type of detail about infighting and trying to cover their backs by dragging the others in to questionable practices the better.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 27, 2021 14:33:48 GMT
Some further information has come to light following the disclosure of Mr Luxmore's defence statement dated 19th May 2020:
At Para 4 Mr Luxmore "denies all allegations against him"
However at Para 16e Mr Luxmore states that FundingSecure's "established practice was that it did advance some loans to borrowers using client account funds prior to that borrowing being matched to lenders" and he claims that "This established practice was also routinely practised by Nigel Hackett"
At Para 42 Mr Luxmore claims that: "On 2 January 2019, a board meeting of the Directors took place, at which, amongst other things: ... c. Raj Kumar proposed that Richard Luxmore give up his shares to [FundingSecure] on the basis that this would be Richard Luxmore's "punishment""
Youre going to need a bigger website
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,861
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 27, 2021 15:29:13 GMT
Some further information has come to light following the disclosure of Mr Luxmore's defence statement dated 19th May 2020:
At Para 4 Mr Luxmore "denies all allegations against him"
However at Para 16e Mr Luxmore states that FundingSecure's "established practice was that it did advance some loans to borrowers using client account funds prior to that borrowing being matched to lenders" and he claims that "This established practice was also routinely practised by Nigel Hackett"
At Para 42 Mr Luxmore claims that: "On 2 January 2019, a board meeting of the Directors took place, at which, amongst other things: ... c. Raj Kumar proposed that Richard Luxmore give up his shares to [FundingSecure] on the basis that this would be Richard Luxmore's "punishment""
Youre going to need a bigger website What website ?
|
|