Ian McDonald successful in Commercial Court strike out application
On 27 April 2026, the Commercial Court (Mr Justice Butcher) handed down judgment in FL Hoes Ventures BV & Ors v. Candy Ventures sarl & Anor [2026] EWHC 974 (Comm), following a hearing of the defendants’ application for strike out/summary judgment earlier this month.
The proceedings concerned a Part 20 claim brought by FL Hoes Ventures BV, Aaquaverse Pte Ltd, and Robert Bonnier against Candy Ventures (“CVS”), an investment firm primarily owned by Nick Candy, and Mr Candy himself. The claim was a damages inquiry, arising out of worldwide freezing orders granted in CVS’s favour in relation to its fraud claim against Mr Bonnier and his company, Aaqua BV (“Aaqua“), back in July 2022.
CVS and Mr Candy brought the application under CPR 3.4(2), arguing (inter alia) that the claimants’ serious and ongoing breaches of the Court’s orders – including a failure to pay an adverse costs order and give disclosure, as a result of which the Part 20 claim was automatically stayed – warranted strike out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c); and/or CPR 24.3, contending that the Part 20 claim had no real prospect of success.
Mr Justice Butcher granted the application for strike out in accordance with CPR 3.4(2)(c), on the grounds of the claimants’ “very significant and continued breaches of the Court’s orders” [41]. He found that CVS and Mr Candy were “being, to a significant extent, prejudiced, by having had to incur the costs thrown away and not being reimbursed for them, and by having the Part 20 Claim hanging over them, but stayed, and with no clarity as to when it might come to trial” [46].
Notably, the claim was struck out notwithstanding that liability was not in issue (the Part 20 claim being a damages inquiry) and the claimants’ non-compliance with Court orders did not include any breach of an unless order. Mr Justice Butcher concluded that “justice does not necessitate giving the Part 20 Claimants another chance on ‘unless terms’” [47]; and that the Court could not “be optimistic that the grant of an order on unless terms will promptly put the case back on track” [48].
CVS and Mr Candy were represented by Ian McDonald, instructed by Dan Morrison, Ben Wolfe, and Nicola Scarparo of Grosvenor Law. Ian also previously acted for CVS, alongside Jonathan Nash KC, in its fraud claim against Mr Bonnier and Aaqua, in which Mr Justice Bright handed down judgment for CVS in November last year.
Mr Justice Butcher’s judgment on the application is available here.
