The claimant issued claims against various defendants, having taken an assignment of those claims from the company’s liquidators. The claimant alleged that the transfer of assets (including IP) to a connected entity was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a transaction to defraud.
In the run up to trial, various of the defendants issued an application for reverse summary judgment/strike on the basis that the claim had no real prospect of success.
The defendants argued that the assets were secured and therefore there was no value to the unsecured creditors. However, that UK charge was granted to a party different to the assignee and was void for non-registration in any event.
At the final hearing, the defendants changed their argument to rely on a charge granted under Hong Kong law. The claimant’s response to that was to say that the charge was granted to a different party to the original lender, was a sham, and in any event, there was a surplus value of the assets as against the loan.
The judge dismissed the defendants’ applications and then went on to consider the claimant’s position that the application was an abuse of process, as it was broadly based on the same grounds on a previous application for the same relief, which was never determined.
Again, the judge agreed with the claimant and found that the application was indeed an abuse of process and that, even if it had merit, which he had found that it did not, he would have dismissed it as an abuse of process.
Garden House Software Limited v Marsh and others [2026] EWHC 314 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.